User talk:Carlossuarez46/Archive 2

First I would like to thank you for your involvment however you're not supposed to remove any deletion proposals before it's reviewed, please don't do it again it might be considered as vandalism. Second If you read clearly what I put as the deletion's reason, it had nothing to do with assertion of notability of the guy but with self-promotion in the article. Have you read the talk page? Do you really think a written, unisgned witness is enough? thanks Abdelkweli 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At no time have I accused you of vandalism. Please read previous post again. Thanks. Abdelkweli 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again there is no accusation of vandalism, please don't feel special about it. I just thanked you for your participation but warned you that under wiki guideline you can't take a db off without proper explanation. You talked about assertion of notability when my db had nothing to do with notability but more with self-promotion. Thanks and have a good day. If you need any advices, feel free to contact me on my talk page. Abdelkweli 17:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want it gone and I don't think I should be the one making such decisions so that's why I decided as a form of consensus between yourself and myself to add the clean up and verification. Take care Abdelkweli 18:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out! --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 17:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the Polydream article. My immediate thought was that it failed WP:MUSIC for notability. If you don't think it's a Speedy, perhaps it should removed from Speedy and tagged for notability and tagged as being unreferenced for a time. If the article isn't improved to establish notability I could prod them or move for an afd. dissolve^talk 18:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please return the Lonely Forest page, I have indicated how they are "significant" on their talk page. Matt510 03:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in case another admin closes it, I'll add what he wrote here as well:

"This band meets the requirements of being "significant."

Criteria: "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable."
They were featured in an article in the Seattle newspaper "The Stranger"
They were also featured on the website NorthwestBands.com in a review of Regicide
Criteria: "Has won or placed in a major music competition." The Lonely Forest won the 2006 SoundOff! competition at Seattle's EMP.
Matt510 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)" -WarthogDemon 03:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you deleted this page? It was re-written and passed an AFD in its new form just a couple of weeks ago[1]. I think you've made a mistake as my copy in user space was an old version prior to the accepted re-write. Please restore the Magee article. Citizensmith 16:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! I noticed you have declined the speedy request on Band Keratopathy. Please note that I am requesting under the WP:CSD#G7 criteria, to which the article currently fits. Please reconsider your decision. Cheers! Navou ^banter 03:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want the redirect deleted? Just curious, I'll do it if you'd like, just re-confirm because normally redirects with only chnages of capitalization are encouraged. Carlossuarez46 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a personal preference really, I'll usually add a name variation after a few days if an article I create persists, if I add a redirect. Only a preference really. I will not re add the csd template, i'll leave the decision to you. Cheers! Navou ^banter 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good suggestion to userify the article. Hopefully he replies soon. I guess we could always fetch it out of the history if somebody does end up deleting it. Thanks for the heads up. Sancho 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been discussed but a cursory glance at the other uses reveals that 1) the James Bond character was the first recorded usage of the name, 2) the other uses are obviously derived from the James Bond character, else an extremely unlikely coincidence and 3) the James Bond character is the most well-known of all uses. Thus, I felt it was a "non-controversial move" and CSD#G6'd it. Axem Titanium 03:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone else already deleted so I just went ahead and moved it. It looks like you've been recently handed the "admin mop", as they say. A tip for the future, try not to think too hard if you're patrolling CAT:CSD; just make a judgment call and if no one complains, you're golden. It's called "speedy" for a reason. ^_^ Axem Titanium 04:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I hope I didn't sound to pedagogical. Anyway, you're doing a great job. Keep it up. Axem Titanium 04:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just have a quick question about the action taken against 71.164.0.121. This was (me) using that IP address (I forgot/didn't realize I had a wikipedia account) and I am uncertain as to why the action was taken against me, instead of the other user involved. Now, I don't edit wikipedia much, but decided to help today, and provided facts that clearly proved a point, so I edited a page Fahrenheit 9/11 (not sure I linked that right here's the text just in case Fahrenheit 9/11). The page was subsequently changed by Reginmund with no information given as to why. So I changed it back and continued editing. This continued for sometime so I looked up vandalism but couldnt figure out how to report it (and I guessed that it wasn't and I was doing something wrong but I had no information saying what it was) so I continued my edits. I found he contacted me on my discussion page and he began threatening me with admin action. I eventually took the time to find some examples of the inaccuracies in the pertinent film and posted them on his page (I didn't realize he posted on the discussion page), and then posted it on the discussion page. After this he rebutted and I rebutted and he kept reverting the page, even though he supplied no evidence as to why. Although I feel that action should either be taken against solely Reginmund or the two of us (I freely admit I don't completely understand the rules) but I do understand he changed the pages just as many times as I did but I posted reasons for my changes. I appollogize for the long post, just trying to understand what is going on. Thanks for the help :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcade123 (talk • contribs)

Woops realized I forgot to sign, thanks for that :) Thanks for the information, explains loads! Arcade123 06:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous editor and I have been frequently debating over the prevelance of certain materials on the article. Will he/she still be able to continue editing the talk page despite being blocked from editing articles? I feel that this is the only action necessary as the editor seems to assume that once he/she posts a filibuster, consensus has been reached. Reginmund 06:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to deal with some objections that have been voiced at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_23#People_by_former_religion. Please re-consider your vote based on my edits diff diff. I have made many similar edits and more are to follow. With regards to your stated reason for deletion please take note that e.g. Karen Armstrong is a former Catholic but not a convert to any other well-defined belief system. Also, what should be the categories of Ayaan Hirsi Ali if we confine ourselves to categories of converts. Category:Muslims and category:converts to atheism? This strikes me as unwieldy and confusing. Andries 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I do it all the time. At first I thought it was your version of a weird joke, but then I decided to check the diffs just to be sure and realized it wasn't. I'm glad, because that would have been some weird version of self-deprecating humor... =D --GorillaWarfare 16:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy note, but it wasn't actually my tag. I found it on the bottom and moved it to the top, above the existing "hang on." A look at history suggests the page was created with it. How peculiar! I wonder if it was a speedy deleted article that the author recreated in toto? Moonriddengirl 18:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is certainly full of mystery. :) Moonriddengirl 18:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlossuarez46. I'm wondering if I can convince you to undelete Noble "Thin Man" Watts. Earlier, we spoke about your reasons[2] for deleting this real-life musician. As far as I know, Watts' notability is not in question, and T. Anthony (the author of the article) did provide a couple of reliable sources (All Music Guide and the Orlando Sentinel). T. Anthony is contrite for vandalizing the page he created, and he has been very helpful in sorting out what the article should and should not contain if it is undeleted. If you undelete it, I'll add it to my watchlist and make sure it isn't vandalized again.

If you do not respond to this request, I suppose I can take this request to DRV, but I'm hoping that won't be necessary. Thanks for your time.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Carlos. I did some copyediting in my user space and verified every statemnt in the article with either or both of the sources given. The Sugar Ray Robinson thing checks out. With your permission, I'm going to restore the article.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1. Could you comment on my Wikipedia: Editor review/SLSB|ER?]]
2. Protect my userpage so only I can edit it. SLSB talk ER 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS :)

It appears that when you protected this article against recreation, the article was not deleted, but instead remained in the page history. Additionally, as the article is being recreated by a single editor, Ultranet, it may be more advisable to block Ultranet if he continues to recreate the article after receiving a test4article warning [3]. John254 19:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right. Sorry. I usually fix those when I do that but I seem to have forgotten this time. Axem Titanium 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll fix those too. Axem Titanium 20:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed all of the mainspace uses. Is that enough? And about the wikibreak... technically, I should still be on it... hahaha. Axem Titanium 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not, but it looks messy (to me). Axem Titanium 20:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User talk:DESiegel):

I see you deleted this redirect; there were a couple of dozen articles linked through it to its target, you may wish to reconsider. Carlossuarez46 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I should have checked "what links here". I have undeleted. DES ^(talk) 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted Relationships Australia as I was in the process of removing the speedy tag from it. I do not think a non-profit agency with significant governmental support, as this article alleges Relationships Australia to be, constitutes a "group or club" in the sense intended in WP:CSD#A7. I also don't think this article was spam (as the tagger did). Apparently you didn't either, as you did not delete it as spam. Please consider restoring this, or discussing the matter with me. DES ^(talk) 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the claimed 60-year history alone is enough to avoid a speedy. I am always really dubious about an A7 being attached to a formal non-profit agency. What I was going to do was tag with {{notability}}, but not with prod. (I would also do some web searches.) If you think this is acceptable, i Will undelete, or you can. If you object, I'll take it to WP:DRV -- I don't like to unilaterally overturn another admin's deletion except in really blatant cases of misuse of the delete button, which this wasn't. DES ^(talk) 20:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have undeleted. I note that the group's website says "Relationships Australia is one of Australia’s largest community-based organisations" and "We provide family support services to nearly 90,000 Australians per year." and "We have a federal structure with large autonomous member organisations in every State and Territory plus a national office based in Canberra." If these claims can be verified by reliabel sources, the subject is clearly notable. I do see your point about small local groups that are non-profit but clearly would be A7s, nor do I disagree. I was trying to indicate the distinction i saw in "formal" but that doesn't express it well. But I do feel that a lot of people are getting a bit too quick on the trigger with speedys, particualrly A7. Thanks for your agreeable resposnes here. DES ^(talk) 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree that going behind the claims actually made in the article is not required of an editor tagging for A7, or even of a deeltign admin. I was ready to untag without doing so. But having untagged, I do feel an obligation to do at least a breef search to try to improve the article if possible, or if it appears to be unverifiable or otherwise prove a poor choice to have untagged, to consider re-taging for speedy or prod. My reportign of the additionakl info was not intended to say "you should have searched and found this" but rather "my hunch seems to have been right this time". DES ^(talk) 20:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling this to my attention. I think

1. A physical place, like a bar, although it si also a buisness, is probalby not in proepr scope for A7.
2. If it were there were several arguable claims of notability here:
   1. "original bar fixtures, ornate ceilings and lavish craftsmanship carried out by the same craftsmen who worked on HMS Titanic"
   2. "Famous regulars at the bar include Niall McAleer, Dan Cullen, Chris Duffy, Sean McGowan, Patsy Breslin and Ray Coleman "
3. Together all these points have induced me to remove the speedy tag.

DES ^(talk) 20:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you head over to the talk page of Pjrvisor (talk · contribs) and provide some assistance concerning an article of his you speedied (which I tagged as G12). It's probably not notable, but I said I'd contact the deleting admin for him as he is a newbie and not au fait with procedures. Thanks. CIreland 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF DID YOU DELETE MY PAGE FOR??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.242.229.79 (talk • contribs)

hi. you deleted the page, "echo movement" cuz i didnt assert signifigance... but they have meen on the cover of phyllystyle mag, ipod worte a great review about them, and they have placed in on competitions...... i just wasnt done yet... anyways i was wondering how can i work on a page after it has been deleted... i am kinda new to wikipedia and havent figured absolutely everything out for myself yet...

Dachronic215 23:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yea thanks i would appreciate it... my bad, i didnt know how to do that. so in the future if i was to create an article i would save it to my user pages untill i am finished working on it.. got it.. thank you

That's OK. Thanks for the clarification.--Sethacus 03:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a faster way than the process you just described. Sr13 03:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the times of day I edit, you'll see I do newpages when I cant get to sleep. (smile) DGG (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Moonpod. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES ^(talk) 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm deleting the Faton article for the umpteenth time after another version went to AFD, and I was looking through the deletion templates, to tag two of the images he uploaded for deletion and protection. While I'm looking through the templates, I come across Category:Protection templates, and I actually looked for the first time at the {{deletedpage}} template – you know how you look at something but you don't see it? Like that. I saw it tonight.

Okay, see where it says "Administrators: Please consider using Wikipedia:Protected titles instead" ? I thought to myself, "I'm an administrator, and I don't think I've seen that page before. And I'm an administrator. And I'm an administrator." Forging ahead with that I'm-an-admin-but-oh-god-am-I-going-to-screw-this-up-if-I-click-the-wrong-button devil-may-care attitude, I went to have a look at it. Turns out there are all these month/year links listed, and at the bottom are some instructions for administrators. Hmm. I'm an administrator. So I looked at a few of the pages, like Wikipedia:Protected titles/July 2007, to see what the hell is going on in there.

While looking at that page, it was like a light went on, and I figured it out. From those useless admin how-to pages, we know that cascading protection protects pages that are transcluded onto a protected page, right? Transclusion means using a template to add it to a page, like WP:AIV is transcluded onto my desk by putting {{:WP:AIV}} onto my desk, or adding my welcome template, {{User:KrakatoaKatie/Welcome1}}, to a newbie's talk page. If I were to protect my desk, all the pages with links on my desk would be protected too. (This is one of those things that would be Bad on so many levels yet still sounds like a good April Fool's joke, you know?)

Anyway – and I can't believe this was so obvious – deleting Faton krasniqi and then adding it to Wikipedia:Protected pages/Current month, with the {{Protected title}} template and syntax, automagically confers protection to Faton and we don't have to do anything else. We don't have to recreate it to protect it or add {{deletedpage}} to it or anything. As long as an article that needs to be protected is transcluded onto a protected page, it stays protected. That's how the page is protected while still showing as a redlink. Go check it out – look at the version of Faton with the deletedpage template, right before I deleted it again, then look at it now. Redlinked.

I feel silly for not figuring it out sooner, but somehow I couldn't put the two together. I did tonight, though, and ol' Faton and his unborn cousins are toast. Cascading protection! Whoo hoo!! We're jet-fuel geniuses!! - KrakatoaKatie 07:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please see both my comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagles Nest and the improved article as well. It would be nice if you could reconsider your choice on the AfD. Ingolfson 10:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Mike Magee (journalist): That was not a request for the article to be deleted. That was a request for an admin to merge the article history which was separated from the article by a cut and paste move. Please don't interfere with these housekeeping operations if you don't understand them. It is a violation of the GFDL for the article to be cut and paste moved and lose the history of who contributed to it. The history merge will be done by the responding admin as part of the operation. Please don't remove the tag again. GlassFET 15:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated both on the talk page of the article and on the cut/paste repair board, the history is that the article was deleted, restored to user space, edited by that user, and then cut and pasted by another user from that version. If you aren't going to fix it, let somebody else do it. GlassFET 17:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for communicating with that user, this is the first time I've been online since I made the first request. And it's not necessary: if you'd bother to actually look into it (actually look at the history of the deleted userspace article, and compare last version of deleted userspace article with first version of article space article), it would be clear enough. That's how I figured it out (plus I was there when it happened). GlassFET 17:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some vandalism on your userpage. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to a recent deletion case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airlines based in Nepal, which was brought up for attention at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. Attempts to delete other similar lists has actually resulted in them being kept [4] [5]. Please consider reviewing this deletion in light of the newer considerations as stated in the above AFDs. Thanks!--Huaiwei 04:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this seemed a sober enough article to me, and as one admin to another, you might want to consider whether it should have been deleted. I suggest you might want to look at the talk page of the editor who listed it for deletion. There seem to be well-justified complaints of POINT, & I would be very cautious with any of his nominations. But your call. DGG (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see the two CBC sources I found. I can see why anyone associated with the school would rather have the article deleted than have these included. DGG (talk) 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

00:52, 30 July 2007 Carlossuarez46 (Talk | contribs) deleted "List of Davis Square restaurants" (Prod left uncontested for five days.)

I created this page, but was not aware of a proposed deletion because it for some reason fell off my watchlist and I was never emailed about it. Could I get it restored? I believe it falls under the guidelines for a proper page, and I know a number of people that checked it regularly. It is still linked to from Davis_Square —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcrules82 (talk • contribs)

That is the speedy delete template I usually use when proposing to delete empty templates since there technically isn't one. The templates have had all there links removed and are empty and just waiting for deletion. It is from a list of all the templates used by WP:SBS and a number of them are redundant and were just awaiting removal of the links to more appropriate alternatives.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 01:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope I set it up correctly in the afd though. -WarthogDemon 01:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this message:Please note that using {{hangon}} on your pages places them into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion; I guess that it's likely to be pre-emptive (I note that a prior one of these eras that I came across was tagged for deletion and I didn't delete it), you should be careful on its use. No one can hover over all one's articles so even pre-emptive hangons won't always work.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm working on a subset of Japanese era names, which means that I have to toggle back and forth between screens -- bringing Japanese kanji into the text, and modifying succession boxes and chronology conversions between the pre-Meiji calendars and the Gregorian calendar. Not that this needs to be of interest to you ... but I wanted you to get an idea of the frustration I feel when I'm in the middle of something and a fast delete action comes along to distract me in the process of getting going.

I thought that putting the [[hang on}} template at the top of the page would protect me, and it has seemed to work thus far (or so I thought). Do you have a better suggestion? There are about 100 more of these pages to create .... I'd appreciate a better strategy than the one I'm using now. Ooperhoofd 01:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret claim to significance as a bona fide claim to significance, and when someone says he is king of the world, to use the standard example, I delete it, though probably by A3. If it is something which the editor could possibly think in good faith might be enough to justify a wikipedia page, however wrongly, then it is not a speedy; if no reasonable person could think so, then I conclude it's someone being clever at our expense and delete it. No 8th grader could possibly think that was enough to justify a page, so it can be deleted. Since however you question my judgment on it, I leave it for a third admin.

For example, I was about to delete the "Ethan christian hudson" baby when you beat me to it. What I did do was send a sympathetic note to the parent. I generally do that when it's a child as well. There was one developmentally disabled boy a few minutes ago rejoicing to be finally in high school, who put in the article twice. I deleted it, and told him not to do it again, but as a friendly note.

Speedy is narrow, and meant to be. All arbitrary process where the other side has no real opportunity to present the case should be, and be exercised as gently as possible. That's the way i interpret the trust I've been given. DGG (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Everyone of us looks for something different, and there are 1200 of us. You have no need to convince me you do most things right. The choice in CSD patrol is not keep/delete--it's keep/afd/prod/leave for another admin/delete. Most people watch the articles they put speedies on, and if they disagree with me & want to pursue it, they can go to afd with my blessing--I often suggest it. If you want to see what I decline to delete, there's an easier way--just look at my contributions. I leave a clear summary. 04:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

of all the processes in WP, the oddest is DRV. Several people have kept a tally from time to time. The question their is process vs results. Personally, i stick to process, because it limits the area where we need to argue about. If we had to discuss every article on core principles, or judge whether something ought to be deleted, there would be no time to do any work. If there are rules, and they work 90% of the time, it limits the conflicts. I learned quickly to not worry when a decision didnt go my way, as editor or as admin. I can perhaps slightly affect the way other people think, but I can't expect to dominate them. In large systems one learns to pick one's fights & finds a limited area within which to work effectively. What you & I should do is find areas where we can work together. DGG (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last one for tonight--it's 1:30 AM here. Brendan J Smith is a problem. I'll think it through online. The Nevada award is trivial, as most state awards. Price Waterhouse is not trivial at all, but it isnt one of their main awards. The actual notability depends on the notability of the companies. Before deleting I'd want to check at least that. So I checked, and found that it is Motive Advertising - Stateline, NV sales 4.5 Million, which isnt that impressive as it sounded. No apparent copyvio, unfortunately--it takes care of a lot of dubious situation very cleanly. If it were one degree spammier I'd use G11. Other considerations: the tagger is a bit of a deletionist, but then its an SPA But then I notice: deleted previously, and re-created, but with adding the sources. Had it been recreated without more sources, I'd defer to the other 3 people who spoke, and delete and warn--I'd consider that consensus. But this is a reasonable effort to comply. I think they should be encouraged. So I prodded with a rather negative edit summary, and expect to see it at afd, where I will let other people speak.. Alternatively, I could have sent it right to afd, with the same summary.

Looking at common interests, i think we might work to rescue the articles from the German WP which are put in for historically notable people, but where only the first line is translated & , as typical for deWP, there are no real sources. My German is probably a little weaker than yours, & I am reluctant to do a translation on a academic subject, tho I have once or twice. My French is a little better, & I have the typical librarian's attitude that I will try to decipher a little of anything in any script I can read, which includes Russian and Greek, but not Armenian. But if you mean common interests at AfD and so on, i have always found it makes a difference when I support the deletion of something in a field I often oppose deleting, but when the particular subject isnt worthy. and vice versa. DGG (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to jeopardize our developing rapport, but I think your comment at the MfD for Category:Wolves in popular culture was not well advised. But even if I oppose you here it need not spread otherwise. I personally have no difficult in being on friendly terms with opponents in some things, and working with them on whatever it is we do agree on. DGG (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what tag should I put to get a Typo deleted? Kl4m 05:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"21:29, 17 July 2007 Carlossuarez46 (Talk | contribs) deleted "New Jersey Country Music Association" ((WP:CSD#A7) Org: Article about a group of people or organization that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject.)" This is my first posting and I am not clear on why it was removed. Can you explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CowboyMC (talk • contribs)

You wrote: I'm not trying to be obtuse, but is what you're saying in essence that if we cannot tell whether an award is utterly trivial then that uncertainty becomes sufficient assertion of notability to not apply A7? So if an assumption needs to be made, or discretion employed, A7 doesn't apply because the assertion of notability has been made? Carlossuarez46 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No not quite, or sort of, but I would put it differently. What I am saying is that speedy should be for things that are pretty much clearcut. If something has the form of a claim or assertion of notability, (such as the statement that a person or firm won an award) then unless the claim is obviously absurd or trivial, an admin can't be reasonably sure that it is trivial. in such a case, use {{prod}}, which gives the creator or other interested editors a chance to indicate why the subject really is notable, or perhaps tag with {{notability}} and check back in a week or two. Oh, an admin could research the purported award, and if the admin finds reasonable evidence that it is in fact trivial, then it can be disregarded, and A7 applied. But that is above and beyond the call. And even doing research one must remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is perfectly possible for an award or organization to be quite notable in its field or region but have little or no web presence -- the web has huge systemic biases to recency, to western and developed countries, etc. In short it is not that ignorance makes an award notable, it is that ignorance means one can't be sure that it isn't notable, and speedy deletions are for cases where one is sure. To put it another way, in deleting an article, would you take a bet of $10 against $10,000 that the claim you are discarding would not prove, on further research, to be non-trivial? if not, you aren't sure enough. If you would say "great, i can use $10", go ahead. (That is my personal standard, other admins might not agree.)

If an article has been tagged with a notability template for a month or more, and nothing significant has been added, i would be far more willing to put an A7 on it. Even so, prod really is no more work for anyone, and does not clog afd, and sometimes it results in valid but initially poorly written articles being saved. DES ^(talk) 21:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if the issue is "contentious" in the sense I think you mean, that at least implies that there has in fact been "contention" which probably cause greater notice to be taken of the subject, and thus would probably increase its notability, not decrease it, other things being equal (as they never are). Recall that press coverage is a main form of evidence of notability, particularly for subjects like bands. In any case where there has been significant dispute (not counting dispute with one person who keeps reinserting an obviously improper article) I would be disinclined to use A7. DES ^(talk) 21:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a BLP context "contentious" mostly means "someone could reasonably argue this is defamatory, even if not everyone woudl agree". I would be wary of using that concept in any other context, however --- BLP is a rather special case. DES ^(talk) 21:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that in the case of a band known -- insofar as they are known -- for raunchy or explicit lyrics, such that, as you put it "the band and album were ones that you wouldn't let grandma hear", this is not contentious in a BLP sense, because such a reputation is often cultivated, not avoided, by such bands. Besides, let us suppose that the article contains the statement "Band X is noted for their sexually explicit lyrics". That statement might be contentions. But that doesn't make the band contentious. So the statement "Joe Zug was a member of band X before joining band Y" is not contentious, and if X is notable, this is an assertion of the notability of Y (per WP:MUSIC, one of the few cases of notability by association). There is no reason to remove "Joe was a member of band X" even if X is known for such reasons.

What I meant is that one should not extend the specifically BLP-based notion of "contentious" to contexts where BLP is not in play. Also one should note that it is statements or alleged facts that can be contentious under BLP, not individuals or groups. I don't think I wald be likely to remove a statement of the "Band X is associated with band Y" type under BLP unless band Y has a very widely known and very negative reputation, widely known enough to be recognized by the person who does NOT follow music. DES ^(talk) 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An unsourced statement that Joe Blow uses raunchy lyrics might arguably be contentious and if so, should perhaps be removed. But an unsourced statement that Joe Blow was a member of Band X is not a statement that Joe Blow uses raunchy lyrics, even if Band X is known for such, that would be WP:SYNTH. But the unsourced statement that Joe Blow was a member of Band X is a claim of notability if Band X is concededly or arguably notable. In such a case I would probably use prod or afd rather than speedy. i would be all the more inclined to do so because I am not particularly knowledgeable about current popular music, and a statement that would obviously imply notability to one who is knowledgeable I might well miss the significance of. DES ^(talk) 23:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking it would have fit CSD criteria for #4. From my understanding, templates just like that one have been deleted in the past - see WP:NDT. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already listed it, but thanks for the offer. lol --Jtalledo (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heyy hows it goin... i dont really know anybody on here, and i was wonderin if maybe you arent busy if you could help me out one wikipedian to another. ...just with some stuff with the project im workin on, and with my user page. if your do it would be most appreciated, and someday when i am an expert wikipedian i would have no problem passing it along and helping some other poor new sap who doesnt know exactly what he's doin... just had questions about referencing and why the table of contents dont show up anymore on my user page and some stuff like that... and if not, maybe you could point me in the direction of someone who would help me?? thanks in advance for your time. -Dachronic215 06:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am new on wikipedia and I've noticed you were the first to speedy the article Image Makers Asia when it was first created. I've worked with a few admins in the sandbox on re-creating the article and have managed to come up with (in my opinion) a quite decent article to post on the main space. I know several others have said it is still lacking notability, but I have done my best with research, (perhaps I could do some more extra research on citations or secondary sources), but if you could take a look and tell me if it is already good enough to be posted? Thank you. Charineeimagebkk 08:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You delete expired prods, not list them on AfD. Please see WP:PROD. —Kurykh 00:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Someone has to make the determination whether the use is for uncontroversial deletion or not..." Please explain this statement. —Kurykh 00:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that you should delete them mindlessly. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. However, some of the AfD-ed ones were pretty obvious (to me, at least), and posting on AfD just for the sake of process (and potential "controversy") would have been more of a waste of time than anything else. —Kurykh 01:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a provision in Wikipedia policy for those who predict future notability: WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia isn't really a place to create placeholder articles that may hold promise for future notability/verifiability/whatever. I've deleted numerous articles (in closing AfDs) that fail WP:N and WP:V. I've seen editors go to DRV and drag me through the mud, saying that their article's subject might be notable someday, to no avail. —Kurykh 01:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken 2 expired prods to afd in succession. Thats another week of watching articles that should bo gone. I am removing both from my watchlist and moving on. Cheers!--Stormbay 15:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I am sorry - you sent you question just after I went on holiday, and I have just got back. Salting is very much a matter of individual judgement, depending on the nature of the article being reposted. If it is a clearly offensive, obscene or insulting post, and if the wording is unchanged, I usually salt on the third posting. If it is just a promotional edit for a band, I may allow up to six posts before I lose patience. Of course, if the wording is changed significantly then the problem becomes three-dimensional, and you must carry your own risk on that. Do not forget that any admin action is reversible, we all get moaned at quite frequently, and we all make mistakes from time to time. I hope that this belated answer helps you.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 01:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following your recent participation in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 30#Allegations of American apartheid, you may be interested to know that a related article, Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is currently being discussed on AfD. Comments can be left at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. -- ChrisO 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above article was a contested prod which I feel is NN. If you agree, you may want to take this one to afd. If not, nothing lost as I try to avoid the process other than to offer an opinion on certain articles. Happy editing!--Stormbay 15:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 04:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I created this page and saw the proposed deletion earlier. I followed advice adn put up other sources of information e.g. quotes from newspapers and such to support the information.

But now it has been deleted - citing 'copyright issues'?

Could I find out more about why it had been deleted and if an undelete is possible?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss.patt (talk • contribs)

Carlos, I've added your suggestions, except for Ray Anderson & Rob Brown where I couldn't see the right guys - maybe you could check, especially the Browns, where I gave up. Who was the big English psychedelic artist? R... Long... or something? A useful cat I think. I see one died in the tsunami. Johnbod 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've added several from that site, but not the guy I was thinking of - no doubt his name will come. Arthur Brown was a musician - "FIRE! I'll teach you to burn..." No? Oh well... Johnbod 19:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was considering renominating the sub-categories in here but excluding the racial subdivisions established by the American census (Asian, African, Hispanic, and Native American). So only ones like Italian, Irish, Jewish, Chinese, Colombian etc would be upmerged. What do you think about this idea? Bulldog123 00:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi again Carlos. You may have overlooked this with all your recent talk-page edits. Make sure to read. Thanks. Bulldog123 06:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments. Bearian 17:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlos, My only concern was that as multiple users me están acechado, it would be best (if you still agree) if you could do it. Of course, if you don't want to I will - let me know either way. Hasta luego, Tewfik^Talk 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to see some of this as I look through some of the old AfD logs, but that explanation really brought it into sharp focus for me. Thanks for taking the time to help me out with that! I'll remember the advice during future AfDs, and pass it along if warranted if you don't mind. Sidatio 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I had seen the template, but I couldn't think of how to do it. --L-- 21:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi again, sorry i have been offline for a couple of days, here is the page you were asking for, thanks for helping me out. User:Charineeimagebkk/Sandbox Charineeimagebkk 17:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure I follow :-) Tewfik^Talk 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well good luck with that. Tewfik^Talk 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for speedily attending to the issue :-) Regards Bksimonb 20:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Carlos. Thanks for the kind words. I normally try not to change another admin's work, but with longer (and more acrimonius) debates, I have found that actually setting off the text for the entire section is helpful. Somtimes people don't see the resolved tags, other times they "choose" not to see them, but the borders help. For your reading pleasure: Category:Archival templates -- Avi 20:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up on that. I prodded the article as it is not referenced, and the band in question is a red link. SkierRMH 00:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i believe you've made an honest mistake by inserting a "Resolved" tag into my complaint on AN/I. the issue was not that of a copyvio inserted into the complaint by User:Kyaa the Catlord, but that of abusive behavior. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i wasn't sure if you're watching my page so i give my reply to this here...

basically, the user keeps making (false) claims in my name and went as far as claiming i was part of the fighting in jenin (also called "jenin massacre"), and despite numerous requests i've made for him to stop and a warning or two, he insisted on doing the same only a few hours after he got a 3rd level warning.

i don't think a block is necessarily the way to approach this and i'm not demanding it, perhaps it would be good if you give him a warning that you've noticed this abusive behavior and if he repeats it, he could be blocked. perhaps a symbolic 5 or 8 hour block and a warning... i'm only suggesting on what might help change this behavior a little.

i've been very patient with some very uncivil people lately, but i see no way of fixing this issue without some outside intervention.

thanks for giving this a look. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. you can reply here, i'm watching your page.

note: the offtopic of copyvio has just been reopened. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Can you provide me with the diffs of the abusive behavior? Making false claims about people like claiming that they participated in a massacre without evidence is a personal attack that can be acted upon: just saying that because you are pro-Israel you are also pro-violence or you are pro-Palestine you are also pro-violence is just the endless rhetoric (it happens also in the abortion debate: if you vote Democrat (US), you support baby killers; if you vote Republican (US), you support second class citizenship for women, are regular rhetoric and will likely not result in a block. A personal attack is different. Again, the diffs would help, because I couldn't find them (but I only spent a few minutes, honestly). Re: copyvio, I'll look into it, but probably another admin will deal with it, I want to help but really don't want to get sucked into a general dispute that will not be resolved at WP (you probably saw my closing of the other two issues relating to the Middle East issues). Carlossuarez46 18:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i havn't seen the other ME issues, i'll perhaps spend a little time later to find a few personal attacks. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here's a new one, a repeated accusation that i was a fighting member in the "jenin massacre". (he's received, and removed, a 3rd level warning on this one). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

considering this new message from 17:53, 11 August 2007, in which User:PalestineRemembered states the following after all the previous discussions and warnings (which he was made aware of^[6]), i'm reopening the AV/I and am pushing for a one week ban.

statements made:

1. are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?
2. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum

-- with respect. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not one of content, rather it is the repetitive aggressive mass deletion of content by certain users, often without so much as an edit summary. And that has not been resolved. To the contrary, it continues unabated, thanks to the ANI's decision.

Could you please please please (!) take a look at the edits of Jayjg and Armon. People aren't asking for you to rule on a content dispute, but rather to take action against extremely uncivil editing techniques, which as I mention, have been going on since I got to wikipedia in Jan 06. Have you ever been the victim of a revert war, with someone who refuses to discuss their deletions or try to come to a resolution? There is a reason why Armon has had so many 3rr blocks and warnings.

i think that you misinterpreted my remarks about their behaviour as being POV, as being source of the problem. It isn't. It's the ongoing abuse of other editors, some of whom have quit wikipedia. Mostlyharmless 22:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you extended the block last time. However despite this and good advice on his talk page, he's editing from an IP address again, here. IPSOS (talk) 03:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I've also reported this on the admin incidents noticeboard [7]. Regards Bksimonb 08:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the question on my talk page. Thanks for responding. Not sure if blocking the IP will help as he has a dynamic IP. I also don't need the attacking edit deleted as suggested on the ANI board, it's more harassment factor that's the issue. What would be the normal way of dealing with an editor who evades a block for a second time and harasses an editor? Please have a look at what he posted yesterday and let me know what additional action you feel is appropriate. Many thanks Bksimonb 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The defenses seem to have held up OK. We haven't had any more posts since the last outburst. Much appreciated. Regards Bksimonb 07:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good... given that it might be worth an IP block, I just don't have time at the moment to whois, etc and look into a block.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It was a response to all the "Why did you delete my article" messages I was getting where the article wasn't defined and the editor didn't sign. Maybe I'm just lazy, but it is a pain to find the username, then go through the block log, then realize it was something I deleted two months ago when clearing CSD. Hard to answer "why" when I don't know what it is.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't speak a lick of Slovak, but there were two sentences that were obvious copy-vios, and I removed those. The rest looks like it was taken from the article you linked, but not precisely, but this will require a Slovak speaker to tell. KP Botany 04:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I used to be able to read more of the religious stuff in most Slavic languages, but apparently studying Romance languages is fading my skills in that area--the Slovak article was pretty basic, and I was disappointed I could not read more without a dictionary.

I studied Polish grammar for over 2 years, and it took quite a bit of time to get my subjects and their adjectives to agree and the case and the objects and their adjectives to agree with the verbs so that I meant what I was saying. Do read David Sedaris's title essay in Me Talk Pretty One Day some time for a lighter side of learning new languages. KP Botany 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'd appreciate it if you give a look at Islam: What the West Needs to Know, i am unable to persuade an involved editor to address my complaint on the talk page properly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 05:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the original author of the naming guidelines, I can say that you are misunderstanding them in your recent CfDs. In the area were I write about when to use Gaza Strip and West Bank I said specifically "Topics related to one of the two main regional divisions, West Bank and the Gaza Strip, should make use of those restricted regional terms, for example." Notice that I am saying that when it is related to one of the two, but these Palestinian territories categories you just nominated reference things in both areas, thus there is no need to be more specific. Nowhere did I say that Palestinian territories is for "socio-political cats", rather I said that the term "Palestinian National Authority" is supposed to be used for "socio-political cats" as it is the Palestinian government (something that is sociological and political.) Palestinian territories is a geographic reference as the use of the geographic term "territories" clearly implies! I think your distortion of my words is shameful but you will get full and uncritical support for these deletions perfectly valid and very useful categories from the large component of pro-Israel editors. It's simply racist to do these types of deletions that are in effect soft denial of Palestinian human rights. --70.48.241.46 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.48.241.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's always great when someone falsely claims to have done something useful but has not accuses anyone else intent on improving it as "racist". Carlossuarez46 22:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dynamic IP, and have a look at this edit summary and then have a look at who created the guidelines for the Palestinian naming conventions you linked to in your CfD. ;-) I think you should just dismiss me, its easier that way. --70.51.228.206 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— 70.51.228.206 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Carlossuarez46 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And you can just call people racists because rules don't apply to you? Carlossuarez46 22:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you are talking about. But I can understand that you may not prefer to actually address the real issue I raise. I understand the type of games one can play on Wikipedia. --70.51.228.206 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those categories you just nominated for deletion were actually created by me just before or immediately after I wrote the guidelines (you should check them) and in an attempt to be within them. There has been a concerted campaign to delete categories with the terms Palestinian, Palestine and Palestinian territories on Wikipedia by the same few individuals. I created the guidelines to try and stop this, but you've just warped those guidelines to say something they don't in order to get my categories deleted and those who have been pushing this campaign have gleefully supported you on this. It's wrong on a number of levels. I no longer contribute to this topic area since the end of May but I felt it was important to make this point to you directly. --70.51.228.206 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I've explained my rationale at the Afd. I suggest you continue your debate there. I will not respond further to anon's claiming to be someone that they apparently aren't (I've left a message at the talk page of the person you claim to be and no response of acknowledgement has been forthcoming. Carlossuarez46 23:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I scrambled the Abnn password on en.wikipedia.org (since I find wikipedia addictive and needed a break), but as requested I've responded to you on meta here with an account linked from Abnn's user page. I would request that you amend your CfD nominations to no longer being incorrectly misleading. --70.51.228.206 23:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried very hard to fix Grieg's music in popular culture. Is is good enough to keep? Have I been explicit enough? Bearian 22:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and input into the discussion. Bearian 01:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlos,

I posted a DRV request here concerning an AfD you closed. Please take a look.

Thanks — xDanielx^Talk 00:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I note you didn't speedy delete Hocaжeк, instead PRODding it and notifying the page for translations. It's quite evident to me that the page is not written in any existing language. For one thing, it's a mix of Cyrillic and Latin characters. For another, some of the Cyrillic characters (such as ђ and ғ) are essentially unique to a single existing language (and not the same language). And finally, it has acute and grave marks on some vowels and consonants (è, ќ, ѝ, etc.), which to my knowledge don't exist in any many languages using the Cyrillic alphabet. Sending it to Pages Needing Translation is rather pointless, since the only person who knows the language the page is written in is its author (who has a history of adding pages on his conlang (Silanian), which, if you'll note, uses the same idiosyncratic Cyrillic symbols). I see that I either misread or forgot the details of CSD A2, which is only for foreign language articles that exist on other Wikipedia projects, although I'm wondering if Hocaжeк qualifies as vandalism, given what the "Non-criteria" section of the CSD page says on hoaxes: "Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum." In any case, I'll respect and certainly understand your decision regarding rejecting the speedy deletion in favor of a PROD, though I do think that submitting it to Pages Needing Translation is a waste of time. Take care, --Miskwito 01:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just noticed, on Silanian, the page on his conlang, he writes "Silanian (Xcѝл'нe) is a language created by a seventeen year old boy named Jason Heffernan (Silanian name Hocaжeк, Nosajek)" (emphasis mine). That utterly clinches it for me that the article is written in a constructed language, Silanian, and not a natural one --Miskwito 01:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know "hoax" isn't a criterion for speedy deletion, but since you had theorized that it might be in Serbian, I thought I'd at least let you know what made me decide it was fake. But yeah, hopefully in five days it'll be deleted. Take care, --Miskwito 01:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did u delete elvia Zamudio can u put her back please!!!!!!!!!!!!!

latinos should not be doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorgezm15 (talk • contribs)

thanks dude for helping out in a way

yeah that dude was REALLY vandalizing the Diva Search page and the full WWE roster company page

and yeah there's no proof that Elvia Zamudio is in the DS 2007

until there's proof this week since coverage is about to start

or incase if she has a myspace she can post something that she's in it- User:Spike7000

please block User:Jorgezm15, since i know he'll keep vandalizing

thanks!

You might want to fix that closure. I can't really tell which article you restored, but it was certainly not Header. ~ trialsanderrors 07:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it you recently deleted an article that was written about me here on Wikipedia. I know it was deleted because my friend who actually wrote the article emailed me the other day about this and he told me the article which was factually correct was up for deletion. As a result I started watching the article and sure enough it was deleted sometime in the last few days.

I am not sure why exactly someone has the right to deem me as "un-notable" but I think you ought to conduct your research a little more thoroughly before you just delete an article about a published author whose books are readily available at any bookstore...I am however not going to write out ways you can find out about me, I don't have the time to waste.

I wrote an article on my blog at Seb's Raw Takes about this which you might be interested in reading. As I say in my article it makes little consequence to me whether I have an article about me on Wikipedia or not. What does matter however is that the deletion of the article was carried out as I am suddenly not notable enough to deserve one.

You are more than welcome to email me about this but I would appreciate an explanation.--SebastianProoth 00:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

>Thanks for responding although you didn't seem to read the email above. I asked why it had been deleted when a little research, including all of the information placed in the article is readily researchable with Google. I didn't ask if you were notable enough to have an article nor is it relevant. I don't understand why you think the article has anything to do with marketing and as I said I don't really care whether it exists or not it is the principals behind the deletion that give me pause. Like I said before; you should do some research before you delete people...--SebastianProoth 06:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your well thought out response. I'd have to say that I agree with almost all of it, with one small but significant disagreement, which I bring up not to be a crank, but because I feel it deserves further attention. The issue is not of course, the content, but rather the abuse of the revert function. The effect of aggressive reverters is quite substantial, in my experience.

As has been said many times before, reverting is a privilege, not a right. While it may be within the rules of Wikipedia, as have been strictly defined by the community, it certainly falls outside the spirit of the rules, and deserves attention from administrators, who are the community appointed guardians. I won't pursue this any further, but do hope that you give it consideration. Cheers! Mostlyharmless 09:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,Newyorkbrad 18:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlos, I'm sorry that it turned out this way, but the CfD is getting compromised by extensive posting to various forums, all but two by one user, and some of them far less appropriate than others ([8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]). Aside from the violations of AGF and CIV in the posts there and on the CfD, the same user has solicited votes from users on one side of this and the previous discussion ([18] [19] [20] [21]) in direct contradiction to the guideline on canvassing. Tewfik^Talk 00:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wanted you to find it yourself, but Hong, from the previous AfD, has been contacting keepers informing them of the new AfD so I don't see what's wrong with telling you I put it up a few days ago: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 8. First one. Bulldog123 10:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can see how there is borderline assertion of notability. I appreciate your informing me, and taking the time to create and AfD page for it, cheers. Toon 20:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather annoyed that you felt the need to delete the Red Bar Radio article. It had just been reinstated via the correct proceedure by one of your fellow moderators, and the deletion discussion page clearly stated it did not need deletion, just cleanup and a few citations. I will give you a copy of the post I gave moderator 'Stormie' when he mistakingly deleted it, acting on an 18 month old deletion order.

"I have a number of articles that you may wish to take a look at.

First of all, an article from newsvine when Red Bar Radio became the first internet radio show to become nationally syndicated, here.

Other articles include sources such as Columbia Chronicle, 2 articles in Wired Magazine2, Talkers Magazine, The Bastion2 and there are also transcripts from Chicago Tribune and All Access Music.

The show has also been features on the front page of iTunes, as well as in the comedy section.

More Press can be found here

Thank you."

If you still feel Red Bar Radio, one of the most notable podcast/internet radio shows is undeserving of an entry on Wikipedia, then you may wish to delete the majority of podcast wiki's, as 99% of them will be less notable than Red Bar Radio.

I should also make it clear that I am in no way affiliated with the show, thank you for your time.

Ice9 21:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object your judgement of Stanley Hendler, however I would like to notice that The PTL Club doesn't mention him, so I guess his handling their case was hardly notable. `'Míkka 21:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. This is in reply to your talk on "Atlantia."

These are some of the criterion that is appropriate for the article mentioned above.

"Patent nonsense and gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes of any sort; some of these, however, may be deleted as vandalism in blatant cases."

"Pure vandalism, including redirects created during cleanup of page move vandalism."

'Atlantia' is not a real topic. I'm assuming the creator may have spelled it wrong or something, because the right spelling already has an article. Anyhow, it must go via speedy deletion.

"Hoaxes: Articles that present unverifiable and probably false ideas, theories, or subjects. Occasionally these can be deleted as vandalism if the article is obviously ridiculous, but remotely plausible articles should be subjected to further scrutiny in a wider forum."

This article may be deleted as vandalism for it is "obviously ridiculous." Thank you again. Leranedo

Thank you for your message. I am unable to find any mention of this character through the link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollodorus or from the pages on google. Please advise on what source you looked at to realize that this character is real. Thank you. Leranedo

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the article, but I was wondering why you feel that it should be deleted. What exactly is "nn writer"? Thanks. Paul Haymon 06:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So it needs reliable sources, then. Paul Haymon 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, must not have read it properly, i didn't notice the bit where it said top 3, just the bit where it said their albums reached #75 and #76, which didn't seem very notable, my mistake though.--Jac16888 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carlos,

Yes. Radiant! is great at providing closing comments. Anyway, about adminship, there are literally a dozen people who are disgruntled that I nominated an article they may have worked on (or liked) for deletion. Also, I haven't been involved in a WikiProject yet and that seems to be a big qualification needed, among other things. So I highly doubt any RFA in the recent future would be successful. However, I am planning on making some more mainspace edits and janitorial work in the next few months. So maybe then, if you would still be willing, that would be great :). Thanks a lot. Ironically, I was going to nominate you or adminship but somebody beat me to it. Bulldog123 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yo whats good ....i was wondering if you might be able to help me out with the page im workin on for Echo Movement. Its coming along ok, but i wanna make it great. so i was wondering if u were interested in checkin out their music and then helping write the article. or maybe if you know of anybody who would wanna do that. or if anybody else happens to read this and wants to help out with the page. sorry about taking so long to get back at you and thanks for the responce... i was on a little wiki break... been really busy with work and school and shit and i havent been on here in at least a week Dachronic215 18:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

what i really need help with right now is getting the pictures on it. i have been talking to steve and dave fowler, the founders of Echo Movement and the copyright liscence holders, through email and they are more than willing to help out in any way that they can. i need two of the pics uploaded before i can finish the albums section too... also any other things you wanna help me out with would be just great. thanks in advance --Dachronic215 19:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i also need help with how to go about making the "influences" section of the page. --Dachronic215 20:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The followings are the classical Greek Cypriots' vandalism on TRNC Wiki pages:

• Putting Greek Cypriot Flag into a Turkish Cyprus city page.
• Deleting TRNC maps.
• Deleting TRNC templates whatever the subject of the template.
• Showing a Turkish Cypriot city (like Varosha) within the Rep. of Cyprus (Greeks)

• Varosha
• Famagusta
• Nicosia
• Morphou
• Lefka

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.224.75.197 (talk • contribs)

Wow - there really is a need for list guidelines, aren't there? Thanks for showing that to me. Also, I will be monitoring that discussion as well as the preliminary guidelines I just posted at User:Sidatio/Proto WP:LIST until we're done and we have consensus. I've seen a few of these efforts peter out in the past, and I'm determined to see this one finish what it started. :-) Thanks again, and please feel free to comment on the new proposed guidelines! Sidatio 02:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir...I am writing regarding the page call "Cowhead and Brent". I did not create the page, but it was about a radio show that I am the host of in tampa Florida. I am not sure why it was deleted. i would like to re-create the page. "Brent" is no longer part of the program and the page could use some cleaning. I just wanted to see why "Cowhead and Brent" was taken down, so I can avoid those mistakes on the new page. Thanks In Advance Cowhead WHPT Tampa Mcalta 02:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. It looks like this page you speedy deleted was recreated here: Black Horse, by the same user. I can't see what the content of the original article was, but I'd be surprised if this new incarnation provided much more context or was much longer. I'm not sure whether A1 applies, though (I know it can't be deleted simply as a recreation of a speedied article) --Miskwito 04:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm inclined to unblock Ladb2000 (talk · contribs) based on their unblock request, since they seem the have made constructive edits before and their vandalism can be credibly considered a good faith mistake (there were no prior warnings, it seems). What do you think? Sandstein 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you've unblocked this user, you also should close their unblock request on their talk page. (I'd do it, but that would make it look like I unblocked him.) Best, Sandstein 16:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the last few days I keep getting messages from people demanding to know why I deleted their articles and I've only deleted 1 article in the last week... I just realized when you took the header from my page, it is still linked to my talkpage; editors are following it and leaving comments at my page. I fixed your header, but you may want to respond to this and this.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem... I found it perplexing at first (were people confused because we both have 2 numbers at the end of our username?) and then funny as hell once I figured it out.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link is there is in the code. this was originally on my userpage with a link to my talkpage. When I moved it to my talkpage I left the link in... it just doesn't show because it is linking to the active page; you are reading it on your talkpage so the link to that page is disabled. I believe this is just how the software works. Of course when it moved to your page the link back to my page was activated and apparently some editors followed it.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, as Radiant! said, DRV relies more on math than consensus. Wikipedia really is a battleground for deletionists and inclusionists. It reminds me of the DRV for Category:Jewish mathematicians, where, despite there being really no reason to put up a DRV, it was overturned and relisted. Afterwards, it was discovered 6 of the participants were sockpuppets, and another 5 or so were email-canvassed into participating. Amazing. I hate that excuse "It is common courtesy to leave some people interested in the article a message." Oh please! "Interested people" usually means "people interested in maintaining the article at all costs." This is one reason I was reluctant to tell you about the AfD at first. If people miss the AfD, too bad. Random participants is the best sample size we can get. Anyway, drop me a message in case you ever get in a Afd/DRV pickle. I won't !vote so it won't be canvassing. I'll just comment. ;) Bulldog123 15:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete this page? It has existed for ages, and is a perfect place to store the link to the clean diff. What gives? - CobaltBlueTony 16:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have the capacity to delete the article, could you not instead locate the edit to which I referred, and restore that? Just asking... :-) - CobaltBlueTony 16:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is truly weird, as I have used the clean diff link on that page very recently. I don't understand why you can't find that version, but I'm not an admin, so w/e. I know I won't be able to reproduce it to its former glory if you can't find it. - CobaltBlueTony 17:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can the composer named "Wastor" awarded by United Nations and holding a Golden Record for the sales of his CD to be considered as insignificant and therefore deleted? And how can a band signed to EMI and having concerts aired live on national Greek television and via satelite all the world to be also considered as "insignificant"? Please read both pages more carefully and undelete them both. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wastor (talk • contribs)

You do realise that "reliable sources" as far as the United Nations award is concerned can be provided in hard copy only, same as for the golden record awarded to me by IFPI. I will be more than happy to email them to you if you suply me with an email address. However, i cannot suply any online reference simply because such subjects usualy are not published online.

As for the WC+ band article, a "reliable source" for the claim that WC has been selected by Sterling Sound to be featured among the top 20 rock productions worldwide can be found both in Sterling Sound's web site at www.ste;ing-sound.com and at http://www.myspace.com/sterlingsoundmasteringstudio . When i tried to put a link to Sterling's blog about the announcment of the winnening bands, wiki rejected it because the word "blog" was marked as spam. "Reliable sources" about WC's live aired via satelite hasbeen suplied but as it is expected the web site of National Greek Television is in Greek. What i fail to understand is whether you deleted those pages because according to you they do not meet the significance criteria, OR because you accept the fact that they do meet the criteria but cannot verify them. Can you please explain to me which is the case and if it is the second (because both pages DO clearly meet the significance criteria) then how do you suggest me to suply you with "reliable sources" taking of course into consideration the situation i described earlier in this msg about online sources?

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by wastor (talk • contribs)

Could this page be restored?

No response from you for my previous post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ss.patt (talk • contribs)

WTF? Did you even bother reading my edit note wherein I clearly stated the page was incomplete? I ran out of time before I could assert notabiliity and provide references, and yet less than 7 hours later (while I'm asleep in my time zone) you delete it? How am I supposed to add a "hangon" or other people supposed to remove a speedy tag when the page barely existed for more than a few hours? We can certainly debate just how notable the band was, and how good the references I may have provided, and then delete it, but to just knee-jerk whack it before it even took its first breath is just rude and unreasonable -- especially given the large amount of just pure crap and self-promotion that remains year after year in Wikipedia. I'm sorry I ever contributed money to the cause, because at this point, I wish I could take it all back. Clearly the "noble purposes" of Wikipedia are just lip service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris X Johnson (talk • contribs)

I went ahead with Emerson Flag Co. and afded it. :) Sorry for the lateness of action/response. I had to deal with a severe case of a coprophagic vandal . . . a vandal that makes your typical dung beetle look like a sponsor for Windex. :P But, I digress . . . thanks for the heads up! -WarthogDemon 18:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just recently started learning how to correctly tag images, but I shall do my best. :) -WarthogDemon 18:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tags good? -WarthogDemon 18:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. :) -WarthogDemon 18:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little puzzled about your bringing expired uncontested prods to AfD. "If you are an administrator deciding whether or not to delete a PRODed article: Check that the tag has been in place continuously for at least 5 days and no objections have been raised on the talk page. If you agree that the article should be deleted, delete it giving an informative deletion reason, such as that given by the nominator, not just expired prod. This is because once the article is deleted, the reason for the prod is no longer visible to non-admins. If you are using an automated script, check that it does not leave an inadequate message. If you decide not to delete it, consider editing the article to deal with the concerns that were raised, or nominating the article for deletion on AfD. To ensure an extra pair of eyes, an article should not be deleted by the same person who placed the tag on it." You have much more experience than me, but it still doesnt seem to make sense. Are you actually contesting the ones you bring? DGG (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that does make sense--but it wasnt clear at least to me that was what you were doing & I didnt want to say anything more at cross purposes there. My apologies. DGG (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about bring grey area things to afd, but this has to be balanced against overloading it. I've wanted to do a test case once or twice, & I picked a single article. . DGG (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carlos. According to what I see, the Fooian converts to Islam cats were merged into Category:Converts to Islam by CFD. However, they have been split out again, so deleting the cats is not really re-implementing the original CFD result. I think they should probably have been merged back into Category:Converts to Islam. Am I missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did all the hard work. I took the easy stuff. Cheers! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look and it appears that the articles in question were added to the category by an IP within the range used by User:JJonathan. All his edits have now been reverted. --Kurt Shaped Box 21:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the note attached to your deletion of the bio page for Aaron McCollough, you state that it failed to assert significance. I believe that I can address this problem, but I am not sure exactly what is necessary in the case of younger poets/writers to establish notability in your estimate. I would like to add a number of younger poets to wikipedia, but I don't want to have the posts deleted. Reputations for mid-career poets are established through book reviews, book publications, magazine publications, awards, teaching positions, and interviews. I've looked at some younger poets and fiction writers whose bios are extant on wikipedia (Brian Henry is a good example). Significant book publication, periodical publication, and the granting of national awards seems to establish notability in these cases. Aaron McCollough's biography meets all of these criteria, although I may have failed to illustrate all of them (I did not enumerate his periodical publications, for example). Can you offer any suggestions for future poet articles and for the possibility of re-instating the "Aaron McCollough" bio?Helen41 01:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see reply on my talk page to decline of speedy for Flight Deck (comic strip). --Alvestrand 08:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason for deleting the LogMeIn article ? They are the second largest player on a remote desktop access market (preceded by Citrix). Tons of Google hits and independent reviews. There's little doubt they are notable. The G4 reason for deletion is very much superficial. Thanks. Alex Pankratov 18:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see from the link posted on my Talk page, previous AfD discussion was over a year ago. LogMeIn is a startup company, so its notability is subject to a rapid maturation. This is exactly why I said that G4 was a superficial reason. Please do take time to look at the numbers I provided above. http://www.google.ca/search?q=logmein returns 1.2 million hits, over 11k hits in news groups, etc. Your deletion effectively amounts to a removal of notable material from Wikipedia without obtaining a consensus. Alex Pankratov 01:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a quick and reasonable response, Carlos. Regards, Alex Pankratov 17:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carlos.Helen41 01:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Thanks for deserving it - to get your userpage vandalised, you must be doing something right :). ck lostsword•T•C 16:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. I'm happy with the subtle one in the top right of my userpage! ck lostsword•T•C 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that you have deleted a perfectly valid and useful article concerning a well-known choral foundation formally known as the 'Quiristers'. It is absolutely necessary that an article like this retain live status- for many the peculiar term 'Quirister', is one that confuses and confounds dozens of individuals every day, and what better place to have an answer to their queries on the word, it's meaning, and the group of people it represents, than on a widely accessible encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. It's deletion does much to confirm the ignorance and arrogance of the administration of Wikipedia- which although thought to be productivly rigourous, is regularly destructive.

       81.129.155.122 15:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of norvan_vogt. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Undelete process commenced - log page for 18 August 2007. Delvian

I'm not here to protest about an article which was deleted; rather the opposite :) Thanks for beating me to take action at the malnominated William Hamlyn-Harris. Some are a tad trigger happy when it comes to those articles. Punkmorten 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got it exactly right, I wanted the whole thing gone. Pdbailey 21:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is has significance to people who want HBOT therapy and stumble into the only other clinic, which sends them away or charges them hospital rates of $1800 per treatment.

Wikipedia is useful to look up such things as institutions of significance in an area, isn't it?

I'm new to the various conventions used here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgreenham (talk • contribs)

How can you possibly find cause to delete Tilera? Are you working for the company? This company just made a big splash with their introduction of the TILE64 processor and you are here deleting every reference to the company and it's work. That is entirely out of the spirit Wikipedia. Put my article back. If I don't see there in 5 minutes, this complaint goes up the chain on Wikipedia. Gavin 00:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the deletion of the earlier versions of the article. It did not assert notability. However, the creator's later submission did. I'm still uneasy about it though: it simply repeats info from TILE64. How about a redirect? ... richi 01:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do G4: I did nn.K14 00:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. K14 00:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only available clinic for people in the area wanting to treat "off label" conditions.

What do you suggest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgreenham (talk • contribs)

As this was my first entry submittal, I guess I should not be surprised that someone tagged it for Speedy Deletion, but I must admit that I do not understand the reasoning... "Biographical article that does not assert significance." I imagine that as I submit more articles, I may get better at this, but I did my best to follow the rules and mimic other personalities in the same category of Singer-Songwriter. Julianna Raye, it seems to me, is significant because of her accomplishments, so a 'biography' with a list of her notable works (e.g. writing and performing the theme song to an award winning and notable movie such as Open Range - Holding All My Love For You) would be worthy of including in Wikipedia. Please reconsider. I am open to resubmitting with advised changes. Thank you for your consideration. --Wmmarc 06:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)wmmarc[reply]

You removed my page on The Carton Family why?? Is it wrong to make a page to pay tribute to my family? It was under construction and, unlike you, I have better things to do that spend several hours at one sitting editing this page. Would you rather me write it all before I post it or something? You seem to delete a lot of pages? Isn't there something better you can do with you time?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Justcozimstrange (talk • contribs) 08:03, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

No problem. Except in the case of seriously aggressive or offensive vandalism, I tend to follow the standard wiki policy of giving a graduated series of four (or sometime three) warnings before blocking. But it's a personal decision thing. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

close call. I think a compromise is to transfer it all to his user talk page. Deleting is a bit harsh. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay; I had a wiki-error needing shutdown. I have userfied that users page. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete it? It was referenced and was as NPOV as I could get it. I even wanted to make it longer than The Daily Grind (coffee house) so that it wouldn't be as short a stub. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  00:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, how was that advertising? Im creating a article about a upcoming game, no advertising was done. --Elven6 01:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People know about it, I mean its over IGN, Game Spot, etc so people do know about it. I think you have unjustly warned me, just because you are unaware of the game does not mean that others are not. --Elven6 01:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey respond dude, I wrote a article about a company, not one thats in a basment, but a actualy company. --Elven6 15:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lyndy Frieson page that you deleted was a ligite page about a woman who is participating in the WWE Diva Search. Why did you feel that it should have been deleted? User:Cowboycaleb1  —The preceding  signed but undated comment was added at 03:47, August 22, 2007 (UTC). 

You removed my product (Super Alerts) but you kept my competitors product (Google Talk)! Why aren't you consistent? A page for Google talk exists. Why the double standard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wgardner (talk • contribs)

I'm a wiki newbie and the first wiki page I've ever tried to create was about the history of my company Horich Parks Lebow and you denied it. Every other company in the world has a wiki page. What am I doing wrong? Any tips you could recommend?

Mickey361 16:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just deleted the above article after a speedy was issued. I was just about to remove it as the article did assert notablity, i.e. starting a well known cancer charity is an assertion after all. Is there any chance you could undelete it please? I'm sure the article's creator (or others) can make the necessary proof of notability. The charity's website [22] is a good place to start :). Cheers. WebHamster 19:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for reverting the deletion. I've done a rewrite and added some sources that go to show notability. I know very little about the charity but the article should suffice for now. I've requested that the article's creator do more work on it. WebHamster 19:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it seemed to me that the notability it showed was minimal, and why it may not have been an exact match for the delete tag, it was still deleteable. The band had few ghits, the top one being the bands own article, which, according to a bot, the article was at least partially copied from, although the notice had been removed. It was also a short article with few references. Anyway, the point is moot, an admin has deleted it, sorry--Jac16888 19:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia and after getting a flag for speedy deletion, I quickly applied the hang on tag in order to review my article and remove any questionable content. However, before I was able to edit anything, you deleted the article. Please advise, how would one go about explaining a company and its origins without causing this controversy? Some of the content was taken directly from press releases etc, I always said "according to---." What do I need to do to keep this article from being continually deleted?Aimeeshiree 22:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your kind comments. A7 and G4 passed me by ... must be Admin-speak I guess. Regards, Springnuts 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  :) Springnuts 00:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; if you think an AfD better serves it, go for it. Thanks for the notification though, very wiki-courteous of you. By the way, for the improvement of my own "wiki-awareness," why in this case is AfD better than a Speedy? (Feel free to respond on my talk page if you have time) Cheers, Zelse81 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So basically the page needed more information? User:Cowboycaleb1 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:13, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Dear Carlossuarez46,

You have recommended my page Alan DeBoer for removal, due to lack of appropriate references. I have five references (all are true and correct), especially 4 and 5. What more am I required to do?

Thank you, FAV47 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Alan DeBoerFAV47 16:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Carlossuarez46,

You have advised my page to be deleted due to the lack of proper references. I have five listed....what more should I do?

FAV47 —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:06, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I declined your speedy request on this one and listed it at AFD, along with their 3 albums. It was debatable whether G4 applied, A7 seems pretty clear, but let's just get the community to speak on all 4 articles together. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Even if the band's article was speedied, the albums would've had to've been AfD'd anyway. Precious Roy 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to do this to you again, but I declined on him - he is a CEO of a notable museum so there is a bare assertion of notability (ugh!) so off to Afd land. Thanks for helping to keep WP clean. Carlossuarez46 20:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No sweat, I was kind of on the fence about tagging that one in the first place. Precious Roy 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This is in reference to the above article you deleted speedily. Perhaps you were a bit harsh in speedily deleting this article I just created today. I have three comments at length. I do not expect you to revert the deletion, but hear me out.

The article had tags and stubs still on it. It was deleted while a discussion was going on the talk page and another user's page. You did not even give me a chance for a discussion at WP:AFD, especially since I tagged it "hangon". I'm not just a newbie, and I think a stub under construction deserves more than a speedy delete. We both know that even the dumbest of articles get procedural noms at AfD. I have created literally dozens of articles, and while some have been re-directed or merged, none have been deleted thus far. I did not oppose your self-nom as an admin, and we have crossed paths at AfD, so I expected perhaps a bit more of an assumption of good faith, from you to me, and specifically, a notice on my talk page. Please do not be so trigger-happy. I've already erased the article from my sandbox, and, if I bother to do it over, I'll have to start from copying an archived version. Legal articles are easy to create at once, but biographies of living persons must be constructed piecemeal. I am an eventualist - I've started many articles as really bad stubs (see Hunting license for example).

The article would have asserted notability as a frequent commentator at the WSJ. I have found it difficult to get the cites, because Dow Jones's web site is proprietary, and does not have a free database of all their articles. I was hoping to get onto Ebscohost as soon as I could. The arguably POV and vanity material was removed by another user.

Obviously, I have two conflicts here: (1) I created the article, so I am biased, and (2) he is a retired co-worker. Bearian 21:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- for restoring that article to my user space. Bearian 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted this page, despite the fact that it clearly asserted a fair level of significance.--RepriseRubric 23:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would reverting the continued posting of a nintendo event information on a pokemon page, count as 3RR? I think that would fall under inappropriate content but I want to check lest I accidentally violate it. -WarthogDemon 23:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly I do watch the article (I'm a part of the Pokemon Project) but I'll just leave it be then. If it persists after someone else steps in I'll go to AIV. Thanks. :) -WarthogDemon 23:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm puzzled why you declined the speedy on Cameron Jackson. As pointed out in the edit summary (along with speedy request notation) the "awards" in the article could not be verified, and the actor is otherwise non-notable. Should I have been bold and deleted the awards listing before making a speedy delete request? IMO, in the absence of the unverifiable awards, the article does not assert either the significance or importance of the subject. And some of the article reads like original research, possibly autobiographical. Please reconsider. 72.76.78.202 11:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carlos, you recently deleted the article on Colette Baron-Reid, siting it was blatant advertising. I have gone over the article and the guidelines, as well as looking at her colleague's articles and can see a few things that may have crossed the line. I would like to re-inset this article and remove all things that would be considered, by your standards... advertisement. It is my aim to get an article on Colette into Wikipedia using its exact format, but we're used to a certain biased approach. So if you give us the green light, on our next attempt, if you feel we still don't have it down, please contact me so I can continue to modify. But...having said that, my next attempt will have been gutted and re-shaped to what I believe is Wikipedia standards.

On the note of her biography, I used various articles as blueprints (Stephen King, Caroline Myss, etc...) to form it. I'm not sure I broke any rules there, but any suggestions will be appreciated.

Thank you for your time, please advise if I can resubmit at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlindeman (talk • contribs) 15:01, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

PS...I forgot to sign my last post with regards to Colette Baron-Reid

mlindeman —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlindeman (talk • contribs) 15:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Hi, our Forensics team spent a good deal of time preparing this page with history, etc of our team as a resource for current and incoming students, as well as parents, staff and administrators at our school. Although it was not entirely complete, it was lengthy and accurate and we had planned to continue building the page throughout the year. We are confused why it was deleted. Thanks B Stew 17:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the heads-up! Just added my vote. :) FamicomJL 20:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first question is, why wasn't there an AFD discussion? I most certainly could of fixed whatever the problem was, but I didn't log in at the time the speedy deletion tag was added. My second question is why isn't Honeytribe notable? They are currently touring all of the US and touring in Canada.[23] [24] There are also numerous articles about them.[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] I could probably find more article about them too, if they're needed, but I thought that was enough to meet the notability guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me5000 (talk • contribs) 21:47, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Just like you've been saying, the latest !keep comments on List of German Americans AfD is convincing me inclusionists are as rabid about keeping some lists as deletionists are about deleting some lists. DHowell, Hmains, and Badaganani (who seems to have a serious chip on his shoulder) all seem to have arguments that culminate to WP:EFFORT and borderline bad faith assumptions. That mind-numbing argument that lists can house red-links is driving me insane. You know how long these lists have existed? How many red links that weren't COI links were added during those times? And why the hell would anyone put a red-link on an ethnic list? No more than a handful. What, they're only famous because they're Laotian-Americans? Ludicrous. Sorry, I had to rant. List of Taiwanese Americans AfD looks like a bitter failure yet List of Belgian Americans and List of Bahamian Americans look like they might be deleted. Because of this, we'll soon be accused of WP:BIAS. Bulldog123 05:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created a article on a radio show called Meshel, Ash and Kip with Luttsy which is a the biggest breakfast show in Brisbane (the third biggest city in Ausrtalia). The article was over 300 words and i only edited it a couple of days ago and that is not long enough to create a decent page, people can't be on computer's all day you know. I request that you give people around a week to create a article, and that you give another chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.18.15 (talk) 09:44, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You seem to have deleted The Flash (book) with a note that deletion was uncontested for five days. There were actually a couple of arguments on the article's talk page arguing that it should be kept. Curious why it was moved to articles for deletion for discussion.

forgot to sign 63.76.154.130 15:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't count of it's contested on the article's talk page? What would be the protocol for recreating the article and then having it's worth debated? 63.76.154.130 16:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gestalt Prayer (and it's modified version missing the last line, as the article explained) is of cultural and historical importance. Why was it removed? 212.56.88.63 17:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It was an uncontested WP:PROD. What reliable sources are there of this importance? There were none in the article. Carlossuarez46 20:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • It was uncontested for only five days; the links from articles on Fritz Perls and Gestalt therapy made the Gestalt Prayer article unsuitable for speedy deletion (WP:CSD article critera 7). 212.56.88.63 22:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Huh? Five days is the correct length of time for a WP:PROD. Policy pages are published for a reason. Also, from the sound of your reasoning, a better understanding of the deletion criteria may be in order. ... richi 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Yes, but why do you believe the page was a candidate for speedy deletion given that other articles cite it as being of cultural and historical significance? 212.56.88.63 00:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • • It wasn't a speedy deletion, but I'll restore it and send it to WP:AFD so that you can show us the 3rd party reliable sources that show the cultural and historical significance. If deleted after AFD, it will be speedy deleted if it shows up again under WP:CSD#G4 and maybe that is the best way to deal with this. Carlossuarez46 02:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. They've been about half-and-half deleted by prod versus deleted by AFD. I think only one has passed AFD so far. I have one more prodded if you want to decline and AFD it now instead of waiting for it to expire: Trondheim Hammer Dance. Otto4711 02:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page should not have been deleted as it was in the process on been expanded. I was editing at the time it was deleted and i was adding what it lacks. It was too early to be deleted and they was not enough time given to make the article even better.Roosterrulez 23:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have been deleted!!!Bobbyisalegend 143214 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was (and it sounds like others where as well) going to make more of the article. The article needed more time.Amazingalistair 23:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it did comply with the rules and the main consern was been changed. It already had bits added to it to stop it! It should not have been deleted82.3.198.172 23:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm, does anyone else smell sock-puppetry? ... richi 23:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Darn the SSP submission process is horribly laborious. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Roosterrulez ... richi 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're more than welcome ... richi 12:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blocked ... richi 23:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had my entry deleted because it had 'too little context'? Do I need examples and pictures?

I put this definition in here because obscure words and their definitions are interesting to some of us. I also do medical transcription and some words are very hard to find even in medical dictionaries (such as piqueur) and I thought Wikipedia might be the perfect place for these gems. I sited my source and gave the definition. Why is that so offensive it has to be taken out? Signed, Humanfemale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Humanfemale (talk • contribs) 20:32, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

The Article Nathan Deeprose is what i'm here for. I know you don't believe that IODE is true, but it is. The IODE (Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire} is an orginization focused on the learning of history in canadian schools( particularly elementary school ). Just a tidbit of info for you...Thanx. [[User:65.95.177.215 01:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Garfible]].[reply]

The above cat is up for deletion review. Input welcomed. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007 September 4#Category:Esperantists here for the discusion. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any time! Tiptoety 23:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the copyvio mistake. That was my fault. Thanks for correcting it.--Billy 00:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]