User talk:RandomXYZb/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Please note that if you are leaving me a message about an article which I have deleted, please leave me a red link to the article to help me easily locate it and reply to your query.

Review...

Hi there, Gb. You said you would review me later of the day of April 13... and it's been about five months now, and there's no review... heh, just kidding. :P But you did wait five months. So anyway, I was hoping for a review now, or whenever you have the time. Thanks, RyRy (talk) 09:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Anvilmedia

Hi
Just noticed that Yesmail, Inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), one of the Anvilmedia clients, was recreated by a brand-new user. It has been speedied before. Can you check if it is the same version as before, or similar enough to assume that it was created by a sock/meatpuppet?
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea^Talk 09:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

User:American steamers

They probably need a user name block as well. There purpose here seems to be only to promote the business. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:JohnTBoy

Will you be monitering User talk:JohnTBoy for edits that are not unblock requests? and protecting it if they continue? If so, I'll withdraw my request at RPP. Thanks John Sloan (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I was going to withdraw that report once I had your reply. If you want to unprotect the page, I wont object. But, this user also vandalises via two known IP's and its clear his account was for vandalism only. Cheers! John Sloan (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RPP

Hi again, i'm really interested in helping out at RPP. As a non-admin, when I see a request a RPP that should be declined, am I allowed to decline the request for protection? Thanks John Sloan (talk) 21:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll stick with general help and leaving notes then! Thanks for the quick and detailed reply :) John Sloan (talk) 21:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: LOL! John Sloan (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

well

I did not mean you... --Vitilsky (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So I guess I'm the one you should apologize to? At this point your edit history leaves me pretty suspicious of your fitness for Wikipedia. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 15:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hovhannes Katchaznouni

The wikipedia article Hovhannes Katchaznouni is continuously being vandalized by User:Vitilsky.

The biography of this man, Katchaznouni is already very secretive and it is difficult to find sources, because he was a leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (established 1890) and is still active today. Some of the things he wrote in his book were offensive to most Armenian Revolutionary Federation members and still is to this day (because the ARF is still an active political party throughout the world), and in the Armenian elections they usually take the side of the current administration as well as the one of Robert Kocharyan, they helped him to gain power because the previous administration had outlawed the Armenian Revolutionary Federation in Armenia. Now, I am not saying I would ever take sides on the issue of is the ARF good guys or bad guys, I can care less, but I do know that their action of making sure that Hovhannes Katchaznouni's book is never read again.

I'm not trying to promote any propaganda, but people must at least consider his book in the name of objectivity, and trust me, it is not made by Turks or anything, because Turks deny the Armenian Genocide, but in many places in the book Hovhannes Katchaznouni mentions the Armenian Genocide which he referred to as the Armenian Calamity or Armenian Holocaust, because "Genocide" was coined in 1948. So I don't see how Vitilsky can claim the book is revisionist history, it is he who is revising history by removing any trace of this book.

The user User:Vitilsky seems to like vandalizing and edit wars, he has declared Hovhannes Katchaznouni as "anti-ARF"? Even claiming that his book was invented by Turks? It has a lot of details about Armenian politics that no Turk could know about, so I don't see where he is getting his information from. It seems there is a campaign by some to make sure his book is never heard about. I sourced a valid American organization that is active in the United States as my source, and Vitilsky comes right back and reverts my edit, without even considering my source or talking about it in the talk pages.

Vitilsky Vandalized my user page because in my user page I said: "Armenians and Turks which I believe is a tragedy because they are such similar people with similar cultures and backgrounds, and yet some are constantly fighting" ... He changed it to cross out and strike out the "they are such similar people with similar cultures and backgrounds" and wrote "Joke?" in my user page, which leads me to believe he can only be a racist propagandist.

Thank you for your time! — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 01:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why we have to reach a consensus considering the sources are rock solid, considering that Vitilsky is a chronic wikipedia vandalizer and has expressed racist comments on my user page. I don't see why we have to give his claim of "fraud" any credibility, there is nothing wrong with Hovhannes Katchaznouni's book, he doesn't say anything controversial except that the ARF rebel party is just not needed anymore.

Why can't Vitilsky face the facts that Hovhannes Katchaznouni did write the book, that numerous sources present the book, and that he has provided absolutely no sources for his claim that Hovhannes Katchaznouni is "Anti-ARF" or "fraud". Hovhannes Katchaznouni was a leader of the ARF and he was leader of the short Democratic Armenia in the 1920s. Because he said the Dashnak ARF are not needed anymore, the ARF members do not like him, even youth members of the ARF organization are trying hard to erase any evidence of his book from the internet.

Usually the person who has no sources and is constantly deleting source materials (three revert rule as well) are punished, may I ask with all due respect, why are you excusing Vitilsky's actions? — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not. If you wait until I post my conclusions on the talk page, you'll see that. _Gb^T/c 19:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, sorry I must have misunderstood, I didn't see anything in talk page, didn't know you are just doing it now. Thank you for your time. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no sources. I ask for sources. That's it. You haven't got the appropiate sources for, you need a source that proves that the book is real. You haven't got it. And that book is allegedly written by him, but knowing that you don't have that source, I can say that it's written by what you call racist propagandists, but on the side of Turkey. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

There's already been a lot of discussion about this on the talk page, and consensus was against you. Continuing to edit war, through your own account and a sock/meatpuppet account is unacceptable - carry on with it and you'll be blocked. For the final time, take your issues to the talk page of the article. _Gb^T/c 14:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the last comment; As you say, User Gb, "that there may be doubts as to its authenticity is, at best, grounds for including a sentence to that effect"; so I included sentences to that effect. I think there must not be any edit war now. --Vitilsky (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you delete the POV fork The ARF Has Nothing To Do Anymore (book) and boot the loser? Enough is enough. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus now, so the fork can be scrapped. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't Vitilsky (talk · contribs)'s current actions constitute votestacking? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Almost certainly, but I'm probably too involved in the whole thing to take any action, as I'd be blocking an editor I'm in a content dispute with. Take it to WP:AN, I suggest. _Gb^T/c 07:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing came of that, but I think it's quite safe to delete the fork now. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Now vandal

Thanks for dealing with the Now That's What I Call Music vandal. 193.60.222.2 (talk) 12:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fethullah Gülen

This article is an egregious violation of NPOV. I am particularly concerned about the edits of philscirel (talk · contribs), whose sole activity on Wikipedia is to monitor this article. What are your recommendations for getting this article back on track? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting. It seems that article is mostly angelic in nature and any criticism seems to disappear from the article. Weren't there some accusations, charges brought against this guy for preaching to his followers to overthrow some governments? I remember hearing about that. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 19:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I linked to the indictment so people can read about the charges, but he immediately removed it, saying "the claims in the source already proved to be incorrect by the court. do not post incorrect accusations." He does not even want people to know the man got indicted; just search the article for occurrences of the word "indict".

Fortunately, the fawning is so transparent (he's supposedly up there with "Confucius, Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and Jean Paul Sartre") that anyone barely capable of exercising judgement can tell the article is trash. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No idea. Will have a read through when I get a bit of time..._Gb^T/c 19:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal article

Hi Gb, I recently got your message. I have been working on the Lateral Link page on the Sandbox in order to put it in as an article on wikipedia. I have read the specifications on inclusion and believe that the company is worthy of an entry. There have been many articles about it, such as in Business Week, the Wall Street Journal,etc. Please let me know what about the article will make it more acceptable for inclusion. I am writing the entry because I believe that the company's unique approach to legal recruiting (that is, no cold calling and giving their clients more control in the recruiting process) is notable and should be written about. But again, please let me know how I can change the article so that it doesn't give the misconception of being spam. I appreciate your note and will be looking forward to your advice.

Thanks, LegalB123 (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)LegalB 123

Hi Gb,

Thanks for your prompt response. There are indeed many external sources that discuss Lateral Link's innovative approach to legal recruiting and have lauded it for its efforts. The article is still a work in progress and thus does not contain the external links yet as I was working on other components of the article, but I will add the sources as soon as I can. Thank you so much for your help. Please let me know if you have any more questions regarding my entry, I will be more than happy to hear some feedback in its draft stage. I do want to emphasize that it is still in my sandbox for the purpose of drafting and may not include all of the criteria of inclusion yet because I am continuously adding relevant information. That being said, I will be very receptive of any comments that you may have and am grateful for any advice that you may provide along the way to ensure that it adheres to the inclusion standards of wikipedia.

Sincerely,

LegalB123 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)LegalB123 —Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalB123 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gb, I have been working on improving the Lateral Link article. Would it be possible for you to review the article (located in my Sandbox)to make sure that it satisfies the inclusion criteria? Any advice you can provide will be very helpful. I am planning to add the article on the public space very soon and would like to know what changes, if any, I should add.

Also, can you please let me know where I can learn how to add the logo correctly? I have been trying to do so for some time now but it never comes out right.

Thank you.

Much appreciation, (LegalB123 (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)LegalB123)

Thank you

John Sloan (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the doppelganger account protection :-) John Sloan (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to cease and desist

I have thoroughly enjoyed your contribs to AN and ANI, namely making sense, and the OuijaBoard resolved tag thoroughly cracked me up. Please stop. This is a SRS website, and adiminiz mean SRS biznes. My ribs hurt, too. Keeper ǀ 76 20:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take it under advisement ;-) _Gb^T/c 07:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Family Trees

I got your messages. What I am going to do is reconstruct my family tree on a subpage. The reason why I create it is to show off and nothing more.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 17:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I can take edits how I like. It doesn't say I can't do that.--Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 18:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I saw the message you sent me. I noticed you said I'm pleased you're showing off. Did you mean 'I'm glad you've got the patience to construct something to show off with.' Andrzejestrować Zajaczajkowski Plecaxpiwórserafinowiczaświadzenie Poświadczyxwiadectwo-Bjornovich (talk) (contributions) 19:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that works.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 10:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Gb, if you are going to delete it, redirect it to the user page marked with family tree coding.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 11:34, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This one. God, don't I make myself clear enough these days... or is it just my aspergers? I dunno...--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) 11:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire again?

Hi. As you were involved in the indefinite block Wikipéire of and his socks back in May, you might like to look at this new case. Regards, --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed, blocks handed out, concluded and archived. Thanks for the heads up. _Gb^T/c 12:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Might want to keep on eye on this

You unblocked User:Andy Bjornovich and since then he's been acting.. well, strange. I've little confidence he has any chance of being a useful contributor. Might want to keep on eye on him. Friday (talk) 18:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I have been, and continue to do so. _Gb^T/c 20:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

user space deletes

hello, can you please undelete the pages you removed from my user space? I was hoping to work on these but I haven't really had much time lately. I still plan on improving these, though, as the article can most likely be improved and reinserted into mainspace (the company/product is quite notable in system administrator land.)

If you had concerns, I really wished you would have brought them to my talk page first before deleting willy-nilly. thanks riffic (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox

Sorry for the inconvenience. Just testing Twinkle out. . .Hope theres no problem. Cheers --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 12:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox MfD

I see that you mentioned Fatal!ty's test edit, but this was the second time hes done this. I closed one of his twinkle tests before (which, incidentally happens to be the same MfD if you check the history) . I found his edit history odd, so I've been keeping a close eye on his contributions. Synergy 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, noted. _Gb^T/c 12:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Recreation of Zoe Stones

Sorry big mistake on my behalf, please redelete it, cheers Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 12:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Theterribletwins1111 (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sullivan Productions-related articles

You seemed interested in this link-breaking and COI issue when it was at ANI. After failing to get any action at ANI, I eventually took it to WP:COIN as suggested. Take a look if you're still interested: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sullivan Productions-related articles. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hm, strange. Let me contact the blocking admin. ;) Tiptoety ^talk 14:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

With a delivery of fish, I hope...! _Gb^T/c 14:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• grumbles* ...and there goes my clean block log n'everything _Gb^T/c 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. _Gb^T/c 14:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was trying to block an IP for which you were the last one to have blocked, and I clicked the wrong key. (If you click the block link from a block log, one would expect...., but NO.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hi there. User:Vahe Armenia is not my sockpuppet, it is my brother...anyway, thanx for the so-called contribution. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry extends to include meat puppetry. _Gb^T/c 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: This

Don't forget to prot the talk! ;-) Utan Vax (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gb! Utan Vax (talk) 12:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Leeds

Thanks for being so helpful and fast. You're a credit to wikipedia. The only evidence for the Primary Urban area pop being 457,427 is on http://www.answers.com/topic/leeds The evidence for the Metropolitan population being 761,100 is on 761,100 on wikipedia The evidence for the Urban population is on a translated German statistics page which is http://www.citypopulation.de/UK-UA.html The evidence for the Leeds City Region population being 2,125,000 is on the same website but the address is http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html If these don't suffice I can do everything possible to prove it. It's common knowledge around here in Leeds and it's such a shame to not advertise its credentials. Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 19:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Gotcha - let's keep this in one place, so I'll answer this on your talk page. _Gb^T/c 20:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:76.94.25.192

[1] and [2] are vandalism. -Nard 20:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, they're on the talk page and not vandalising now, so I'm loathe to block. _Gb^T/c 21:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

NPW

Hi, sorry to be a nuisance but when you approved me to use NPW you added the wrong name to the approval list, you added "Ameliorate" (with an "L"), rather than "AmeIiorate" (with an "i"). Would you mind changing it? Sorry about the hassle. Cheers, ~ AmeIiorate _{U T C} @ 13:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - sorry about that. _Gb^T/c 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rollback request

Gb, please can you give me rollback powers? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Done - please read WP:Rollback and be aware that it should only be used for reverting blatant vandalism. Thanks. _Gb^T/c 07:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Cityvalyu

Hello Gb. I have noticed that you have already dealt with this user. Can I ask you to take a look at his continuing offending behavior? He has called me "a Georgian (NATO prodigy)", and accuses me of "brazen behaviour" and "covert vandalism". I'm trying my best to remain polite in my edits summaries and on talk pages, but I really don't want to have these insults thrown in my face any time I encounter this user. Thanks, --Kober^Talk 13:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Warned. _Gb^T/c 19:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Kober^Talk 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikinger/CBMIBM

I think he may be back!

see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Wikinger (2nd nomination)

(FPaS who was the blocking admin also notified)

Mayalld (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/91.94.183.188 ??

Blocked. I've also semi-protected two of his usual stomping grounds. _Gb^T/c 13:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Peakoil40

Hi, I noticed you blocked peakoil40 (talk · contribs). They're back as peakoil50 (talk · contribs). NJGW (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks for the heads up. _Gb^T/c 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Is there a way of blocking sockpuppeteer Global10133 (talk · contribs)'s IP? Actually, I suspect (with no hard proof) this user has had other accounts, but the Peakoil ones have just been SPA enough to spot right away. NJGW (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, on the basis that they're clearly one and the same and they ignored the warning from this morning when creating Peakoil50 (talk · contribs). _Gb^T/c 18:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe Peakoil60 (talk · contribs)? Guess he's not very creative. NJGW (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. People often aren't very creative - go to Special:Listusers and search for JoshuaGrant (with that capitalisation) - each of those is a sock of the same person..._Gb^T/c 07:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And back again: Environmentcrisis (talk · contribs) NJGW (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a bit of variety, at least. Blocked, though. _Gb^T/c 20:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I had taken this to Raul654 after he changed the sock template on Environmentalcrisis, but he doesn't seem to be around as much as you are. This is copied from his talk page to keep you in the loop.

Pythagoras (talk · contribs) just made an edit just like the Global10133 group makes to Pickens Plan, and has had runins with WMC in the past. Thought you might be interested. NJGW (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's a sock. The account is 4 years old, and I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry in the checkuser data. But if he's acting like global10133 - that is to say, proxying for him - that's bannable all the same. Raul654 (talk) 22:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He may be the puppeteer of the Global10133 gang, including of Environmentalcrisis: Peakoil60 Peakoil50 Peakoil40 Peakoil30 68.209.177.178 68.209.177.178 Just The Facts Pythagoras Environmentcrisis... Do you mind looking into this (and doing what you feel is needed to Pythagoras) NJGW (talk) 05:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but in all honesty I'm not going to have the time to give this much attention - if the CU is coming back inconclusive, then it'll be totally reliant on contributions - maybe open up a case at WP:SSP to get another set of eyes on it? _Gb^T/c 13:11, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't think initially it would continue this far either. I'll drop a link to the SSP in case you want to add it to your watch list. NJGW (talk) 15:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's the link. Have a look if you get a chance. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Pythagoras. NJGW (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Leeds Continued

Sorry it took so long to get back to you about the city of Leeds. I have found a national statistics source showing that the population of the city of leeds is 715,402.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/pyramids/pages/00da.asp

That is the website. It shows the population pyramid for the city of Leeds and shows the total population at near the bottom of the page.

I will keep endeavoring to find the populations for greater Leeds and the Leeds City Region.

(a few minutes later) I've found an official site for the Leeds City Region population http://www.leeds.gov.uk/files/2007/week23/inter__57D2D01DD38142A580256E00004160E8_c8f64408-be1e-490a-908a-56a5bd6a4abe.pdf sorry its such an obscure page but it is official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubs uk (talk • contribs) 15:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, only just got your message. Do you still need help incorporating the reference? _Gb^T/c 07:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Newman

Gb (Talk | contribs) protected Paul Newman [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 13:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)) ‎ (Excessive vandalism)

There was no vandalism at all, correct me if I am wrong. How does this become excessive vandalism as a semi-protection reason? 86.44.29.8 (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because at the time it was protected there were repeated insertions of uncited allegations of his death which weren't supported by any, let alone reliable, sources, in violation of WP:BLP. Note that the list of types of vandalism on the page you link to is not exhaustive..._Gb^T/c 20:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The list of what vandalism is not is also not exhaustive, yet it still covers what you're talking about. As does common sense. So please don't malign people. Bold, uncited good-faith efforts to improve the encyclopedia should not be the cause of you closing the article down citing "vandalism".

Semi-protection did not stop uncited info being added, and the info was cited less than an hour after you protected for a week. How does this make any kind of sense? And why is the article still protected?

Next time will you full-protect an article like this? Though logic would seem to suggest you should, you won't, because registered editors know just where to go to complain that "It's a wiki!" and "How draconian!" and "We were handling it through reversion!" and etc. I'd love to hear them if you locked them out for "vandalism", and for a week. 86.44.17.106 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want it unprotected, take it to WP:RFPP. Next time, as with this time, and as with the hundreds of protections, semi-protections and unprotections I've carried out, I'll use my judgment. If you don't like, or disagree, with my decision, as your attitude is making clear, well, so be it...I've taken your comments and views on board._Gb^T/c 12:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Stale AIV Report

Regarding [3], stale report of 65.6.130.216:

Sorry about that. I realized that it was stale after I reported it, but you noticed it before I could remove it. Do I need to remove it from AIV or just wait for an admin to remove it (it's my first stale report)? Thanks! Apparition11 (talk) 19:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. You can remove it. If the recent edits are vandalism then just refresh the warning (maybe bung in third level headers to make the different dates clear) and feel free to bring it back to WP:AIV if they carry on... _Gb^T/c 19:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I'll do that. I figured that I could remove it, but just wanted to make sure before I did. Cheers! Apparition11 (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. That's what we're paid for. ;-) _Gb^T/c 19:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Redsoxsuck94

Hello Gb. In regards to the above case, what about Spursfan08? How else would that not be a sock? ~ Troy (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's sort of a sock, but it's not really a breach of policy - when Redsoxsuck94 was blocked, the blocking admin felt that the name was inappropriate, but wasn't grossly offensive, so merited only a softblock and not a hardblock (ie. he left the autoblock off so that the underlying IP wasn't also blocked, just the account) - your report is slightly incorrect in that aspect. When that happens the block notice (which is different for a hardblock as for a softblock) actively encourages the user to make a new account with a better name - because the autoblock was off, that's precisely what they did in this instance. They logged in, saw the block notice, clicked through to Special:UserLogin/signup and made a new account - because they were logged in under the old name that's why the new name shows up in the old name's user log. There's no breach of policy in that..._Gb^T/c 06:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

removal of the louisiana music hall of fame page

it appears that you have recently blocked/removed the page on the louisiana music hall of fame... lmhof is an educational site with thousands of bios, pix, etc, done with the full cooperation of the inductees, the state of louisiana, etc.... research shows other louisiana museums (the delta music museum for instance) as well as commercial sales outlets (louisiana music factory for instance) and similar national entities (the rock and roll hall of fame for instance)... lmhof is not advertising, we are providing a massive site with thousands of hours invested and is certified by the US IRS as a tax exempt - non profit foundation.... our inductees are officially welcomed by the sitting governor of the state of louisiana, although we get no financial support from any state department.... all of our researched materials and created materials (bios, pix, videos, audio recordings, artwork, etc) are shared by inclusion into the louisiana state archives for viewing and reference... please review this immediately... and, if you have not done so, please go to our site at louisianamusichalloffame.org ...the only advertising that we do at all is newly made available supporters banners... all funds from any such very limited banners go directly to the continuing expansion of the site and its information.... for instance, we have recently posted live video interviews with two inductees, phil phillips (sea of love) and dick holler (abraham martin and john) and are adding more constantly.. shortly we will be opening areas on mahalia jackson and ellis marsalis, just to name two....

lmhof does not sell music, etc... we have designed our site to display and not to sell or allow downloading for profiteers many of our viewables are original, one of a kind, provided directly by the inductees and viewable nowhere else, etc.

we are offering an educational service to all free of any charge, available to any and all, anytime

please restore the page asap —Preceding unsigned comment added by Louisianamusichalloffame (talk • contribs) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No - it failed to establish any notability, so was speedily deleted. I have no issue with what your site does, but as the article stood it failed to assert why it merited inclusion in Wikipedia, and as a result the only purpose it served was the promotion of your site - hence why it was deleted as being blatant advertising. The actual content of your site, advertising supported or nay, is not what was being referred to. May I suggest you read this page , this page and this page to give you a better idea of what does and doesn't merit inclusion, and why this page was deleted. And please don't rant all over my talk page - one fullstop at a time is generally enough. _Gb^T/c 19:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan^sign _review 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - not sure what I did to deserve it, though! _Gb^T/c 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MortonStalker

Hey, thanks for your input at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/MortonStalker. Before I go on with it though, I was just wondering about who I nominate. As I said on that page, I'm not really sure who the puppets and puppeteers are, so I'm not sure if I have the right two users. Is it possible to throw out a wider net? Or do I have to specifically name the right two users? If I pick the wrong two it's game over and the sockpuppety continues right?--Jeff79 (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

You name the two users you put in the WP:SSP report - if there are any other linked users then the checkuser should throw them up. _Gb^T/c 06:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

Hi there, I removed the information of a sock of the other user, because I have thought it was a sock but does not look like it anymore, and the suspected socks of me reported was just an attack of random IP addresses, for me reporting them. I hope you understand. 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be a random set of IP addresses, but you've got to agree that it looks particularly suspicious if someone's removing a report about themselves! I'll look at them both, and definitely close the first one based on your comment here. _Gb^T/c 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it can be {{done}} time nao?

Thanks for that, I granted the request 15 mins ago but forgot to mark it. Cheers, WilliamH (talk) 12:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Now that is truly bizzaire regarding the date - but the entry in the rights log fits. Strange. WilliamH (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

It's ok I got it - I based it on this, but forgot to amend the signature. Thanks again. I've been up since 4.30am :( WilliamH (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Vyaghradhataki(2nd)

I am sorry. I hadn't expected such a late response. So wasn't keeping track. I was the one who complained about this individual and was surprised to find that you had given the reason as lack of recent edits. I request you to have a second look at those profiles and their contributions. One of the profiles had been active till September 2008 (the last edit coming a couple of weeks before you made your decision) and the others till April-May 2008. It's quite true that the person had not been creating new profiles of late. However, nevertheless, he had been vandalizing from anonymous IPs in the range 122.*.*.*. Please have a look at the edit histories for Iyer and Vadama. The issue has been temporarily resolved by protecting those pages but he would, no doubt, start vandalizing the articles again when the period expires, just as he has been doing for the past one year. Thanks -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 06:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I will have another look, but as I said in the comments and conclusion, the only recently-active account had already been blocked before you lodged the WP:SSP case. If he's vandalising from as wide a range as 122.*, then there's almost certainly nothing that can be done other than to semi-protect, because a rangeblock at that level is completely impractical. Sometimes semi-protection is the best that can be done - people do tend to get bored after a while, you know! _Gb^T/c 06:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I apologise for my behaviour in using the rollback tool. I have learned from my mistake and want to move on. I understand that I shouldn't have used the tool in such a way and next time when requesting such a tool I will be more cautious. I had been under a little stress in college, and I shouldn't have ignored your warnings. Can I please have the tool back? I will be more responsible now. I don't want to ruin my reputation. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 00:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I accept the terms and will try to use it where appropriate. Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 20:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Also would you mind signing my guestbook? Lord of Moria _Talk ^Contribs 20:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but I don't do guestbooks...I don't think that's what we're really here for. _Gb^T/c 21:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Gregory J. Harbaugh

I was wikifying articles and I noticed that Gregory J. Harbaugh's page is a copy-and-paste from NASA's website. [4] However I also noticed this mesage :  This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.,

and looked at NASA's guidelines [5] which say: ,

"1. You may use NASA imagery, video and audio material if it is for educational or informational purposes, including photo collections, textbooks, public exhibits and Internet Web pages.

4. NASA should be acknowledged as the source of the material. 7. NASA does not indemnify nor hold harmless users of NASA material, nor release such users from copyright infringement, nor grant exclusive use rights with respect to NASA material.

8. NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use. If not copyrighted, NASA material may be reproduced and distributed without further permission from NASA."

Does that mean that as long as NASA is cited, the entire article can be a "copy-and-paste"? -- $user log ^(Talk) @ 00:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets

Hi there, I removed the information of a sock of the other user, because I have thought it was a sock but does not look like it anymore, and the suspected socks of me reported was just an attack of random IP addresses, for me reporting them. I hope you understand. 17:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may be a random set of IP addresses, but you've got to agree that it looks particularly suspicious if someone's removing a report about themselves! I'll look at them both, and definitely close the first one based on your comment here. _Gb^T/c 17:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Now is a definite suspected sock puppet of that previous user, User:Malkoçoğlu. Just added to the page. Please view, thanks! Mohsin (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC) ? Mohsin (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll look at it when I get a moment. _Gb^T/c 08:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

About that twice-deleted, twice-recreated redirect that appears to have been protected...

... since User Page is infact a twice-deleted, twice-recreated cross-namespace redirect, wouldn't this fall under WP:CSD G4? It could be just as easily salted to prevent abuse (in case you decide against it, the redirect is also up for RfD, but still...). Since it seems to be fully protected, I couldn't put {{db-repost}} on it. Thanks for your consideration. B.Wind (talk) 03:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not really a G4 (there's been no prior deletion discussion), but I've put my fuller reasoning on the RfD page. _Gb^T/c 08:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies..

I was simply copy-pasting from other illustrations from unrelated books. However, if there is a rule on copyright ages, then why even bother making a template with a number which can be modified? °(confuzzled° :/Mariomassone (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If it is against the rules, then I can hardly stop you... shame though. Before you do though, could you tell me of any possible rationales which I could use to keep them?Mariomassone (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

8. # Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.,

Pauline Bayne's work could be considered as iconic, as;

a) She illustrated a highly successful book series

b) She illustrated the first editions of said book series...Mariomassone (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Very well then. I just find it irritating that the only imagery available comes from lamentable film adaptations of the original works.Mariomassone (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just one more thing; the author of the books themselves died 45 years ago, the author of the illustrations died 2 months ago. Both cannot therefore "give consent". Secondly, the template specifies "with a copyright term of life of the author plus 70 years or less". Both have died less than 70 years ago. Maybe I'm misreading it, but wouldnt that make them valid in the pd?Mariomassone (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, Pretzels^Talk! 09:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved

Hey there Gb, I posted a page for User:RestoringHope. We're a hospital in Michigan. Our Wikipedia entry doesn't seem that different from these other hospitals in our area:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_Health http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Rest_Christian_Mental_Health_Services

Please take a look at the above links and then let me know what I need to do to get our posting to stick. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by RestoringHope (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but as it stood it was phrased as blatant spam. The fact that you're involved in the organisation concerned means you have a conflict of interest, and just because other organisations have an article doesn't mean that all such organisations should - that other stuff exists isn't a valid reason. I would suggest that your first step is to read through the policies linked to in the blue words in this reply. _Gb^T/c 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why was my article deleated?

yeah sorry for not making a red link it makes no sense I'm not a computer genius. But why was my article on the M-Party deleated it is a legitimate political party —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkfan91 (talk • contribs)

Janice Long

With your permission I'd like to remove the unsourced material. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Already done it. _Gb^T/c 19:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. I'm afraid it's happening again. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, don't worry about that. He seems to be happy with Monday to Friday mornings. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Mononomic

I completely understand your concern and, in hindsight, I do need to have more experience on this account for this request to be reasonable. I thank you for your decision. However, I found your comment "Your first edit as a registered user is to add a rollback permissions request? I love the smell of socks in the afternoon..." awfully harsh and tactless. I hope that next time you can be a little more polite. Mononomic (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, but a registered account making certain edits (adding Twinkle to its monobook, for example), or edits to certain pages (WP:ANI, or WP:AN) for example, are generally giveaways that the user is not new to Wikipedia - that's what I my remark was aimed at, although in hindsight it was perhaps a tad harsh. For that I apologise...but you've got to admit that I was right about this not being your first time on here ;-) _Gb^T/c 18:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. I'll try later and try to build up my confidence :) Mononomic (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:RFPP

Thanks for the prompt response. I'm actually considering taking this to WP:ANI as it's an ongoing and escalating case of wikistalking. The user appears to have a grudge against me for outing him/her as a sock a couple of weeks ago and is engaging in reverting my recent edits, seemingly just for the sake of it. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the bit I'm monitoring...anyway, do the IPs appear to fall within a particular range? _Gb^T/c 20:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think they could be proxies because they seem to be registered in countries around the world. Several are apparently from Uruguay, there's one from Belgium and earlier in the week there was one from the Netherlands. Alternatively we're either dealing with someone with a jet-set lifestyle (which somehow I doubt) or there's a lot of people with an interest in the UK media and its presenters. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. that makes it more interesting. 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

TheRetroGuy

I think you should know the background to this. TheRetroGuy took exception to a referenced and sourced section on the Jenny Agutter article. After a request for consensus none was achieved so he took unilateral action and removed. After some edit warring he requested that the article be locked. The talk page has also been locked preventing discussion of the section under dispute. The section is no longer there for it to be discussed. I believe the section should be restored since it satisfied wiki criteria (as pointed out by another admin on the discussion page but who has been ignored!). TheRetroGuy has shown a diregard for wiki policy which included him deleting MY REQUESTS FOR INTERVENTION which resulted in him being banned. He subseqently tried to crat another account while he was banned which resulted in a temporrary ban on his IP address. Wha has happened to teh Jenny Agutter article is unacceptable since it was under dispute and unilateral action has been taken to remove a section of the article. I am going to work through TheRetroGuy's edit history and remove every edit he ever made unless the Jenny Agutter article is sorted out. 189.19.250.9 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the discussion as a result of which a ban was imposed? _Gb^T/c 21:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I was actually temporarily blocked by Toddst1 for edit warring with this user. I didn't try to create a new account, but I find it interesting that they know about my IP being blocked (which indeed it was for a while). You might like to take a look at this (an archive of the discussion) together with this (which was Pedro's resolution). I was wrong to edit war, but it does not justify the current harrassment. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd figured as much...in any event, I think we'll be waiting a while for a response, at least from that IP address._Gb^T/c 21:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the link to the Jenny Agutter discussion where no concensus was clearly achieved but which TheRetroGuy decided to go it alone: [6]

TheRetroGuy is a liar. The good thing about wikipedia is that everything is recorded. This is the link to his page showing his ban: [7]

81.131.45.72 (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I object to being called a liar. A ban is very different to a block. TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Another blocked proxy. Don't worry about it. _Gb^T/c 21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this is a proxy? This is a) an openworld dialup IP, and b) therefore dynamic over very short periods. I would say it's almost certainly not a proxy, open or otherwise. Could you check again? Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad, you're right. Tweaked downwards to 48 hours. _Gb^T/c 22:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the dispute over the Jenny Agutter article isn't going to be resolved despite another admin voicing his concerns over the removal of the section on the discussion page (which has been locked so can no longer be discussed) I have no option left but to punish you. I have randomly removed ten of TheRetroGuy's edits from his edit history, and I will continue to do so every day until the dispute over the Jenny Agutter article is resolved by consensus and not by the unilateral censorship of a single editor. It's in your hands now, you're going to have to co-operate with me at some point. I'm not giving over any more substantial time to this, but I can spare 10 minutes a day to make the edits and it will take you guys an awful lot longer to track them down. 200.129.25.26 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. "I'm going to punish you until you get to a consensus that I'm happy with"...? How very pointy of you. _Gb^T/c 09:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Dylan620

Could you please review my request for rollback rights here? --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 23:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears it's already been dealt with by another admin. _Gb^T/c 07:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Long article

There's a really long article and youre an admin so I think you should divide line of succession to the british throne--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Two links for you to read : WP:SLAVE and WP:SOFIXIT. _Gb^T/c 09:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Please tone it down a bit...

When you accepted the admin bit (the mop), that came with an acceptance of a higher standard of behavior with regard to interpersonal dealings with other users. When you decline an unblock request, like this: [8], it does not reflect well on yourself or on other administrators. He may be annoying, he may have deserved his block, but there is no reason to lower yourself to this. You are better than that, and in the future please leave more neutral-toned replies... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

User block

Did you find something wrong with the way I was handling this username?  Frank  |  talk  20:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No, and apologies if it seems like I was stomping all over it. To be blunt, with only one (completely spammy) deleted contribution to their name, it was patently clear that their motivation for being here wasn't to contribute constructively in any way. Whilst I think a lot of usernames are borderline, and do merit discourse with the user concerned, the patently spammy nature of this one, and the patently spammy nature of their only contribution, was to me pretty indicative that this wasn't one of those borderline ones. _Gb^T/c 20:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I agree about the spamminess, certainly, but after the single edit and my note, nothing further happened. I guess that unless I was planning to keep checking back until an edit occurred...it's probably best this way. I've just started in UAA; thanks for your reply. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected guideline guideline?

Please explain why it is appropriate for you to edit a protected guideline, WP:MOSNUM, when there has been no request for the change on the talk page, nor any agreement the change is noncontroversial. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoaxes

Yo Gb. Thanks for dealing with the Fruit don't talk article. I'm a little confused by the speedy delete (if not the early close of the AfD); Wikipedia:HOAX#Dealing_with_hoaxes says we generally don't speedy delete hoaxes, while your speedy deletion rationale was "patent hoax". Should I have nominated it for CSD rather than AfD? Is there an objective difference between a speedyable hoax and a non-speedyable one? There seems to be a gap between theory and practice here, and I'm wondering if you could enlighten me. Sincerely, the skomorokh 03:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for butting in, I can try to answer this. If the hoax is so well written and referenced that it requires siginificant investigations, it is probably best to bring more eyes on it. However, if the article is patent bullshit, it easily qualifies as vandalism and can be speedied. The distinction is there to prevent the deletion of articles which appear to be subtle hoaxes in the eyes of one admin, but which later investigation show to be legit. Articles which aren't subtle, and give no reason at all to presume them to be legit can be safely deleted as hoaxes. If an article talks about a pioneering basketball player who played in the 1930's, and said article is well sourced, and later turned out to be made up, well, that should probably go through AFD. If the article is about a 10-year old girl who is currently the starting center for the LA Lakers, well, that is patent bullshit, and can safely be speedied... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Jayron. I see a distinction between an easily refutable hoax such as the 10-year old starting for the L.A. Lakers and something like a made-up 15th century Bulgarian aristocrat. Do you think your analysis reflects prevailing convention/consensus? If so, do you think you could add a "patent bullshit" clause to WP:HOAX? (I'm not a native speaker and don't understand the use of the word "patent" in this context). Clarity would be of a lot of help. the skomorokh 04:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The deal is that a hoax needs to be at least plausible. Not every utterance of untruth is a hoax... What makes a hoax different from simply lying or making stuff up is that a hoax has gone through intricate means of covering up the nature of the lying. Hoaxes by the very definition of the word imply plausibility. If it isn't plausible, its just vandalism... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the message behind WP:HOAX is that often what strikes most editors as implausible can be shown to be true, meriting long discussion. So implausibility alone cannot be grounds for speedy, if we agree with WP:HOAX on the fallibility of common sense. the skomorokh 04:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was asleep. In all honesty, this is one of those things where the rules and the practice differ probably to err on the side of caution. I don't want to draw a strict, black letter approach out of this, but in short if an article sets my bullshit detector off as frantically as Fruit don't talk did then my overall approach will still be to delete it - 50 million albums sold in the US, and 8 million in the UK, and google has no mention of it? No website? Nothing on Amazon? Meh - delete it as it's 99.99% likely to be complete bollocks, and if it's not there's always WP:DR. _Gb^T/c 09:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems like a reasonable modus operandi; I think we're all on the same page. I've inserted a caveat into WP:HOAX, hope it's not too rash. Sorry for taking over your talkpage! Regards, the skomorokh 15:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Record Label

Hi, I wrote an article about a small record label and it was deleted by you. I do not disagree on why it was deleted, but I would really like to have this article on Wikipedia. I re wrote the article being a lot more objective and editing all the content that I thought it sounded like advertising but I want to make sure that this time it´s correct. Is there anything I should do before I uploded on Wikipedia? The article is MB Entertainment Business Group. Thanks a lot for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcorp (talk • contribs) 00:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you should read the following guidelines / policies : WP:CORP, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. It would appear from your choice of username that you have some involvement in the company concerned which means that you shouldn't be writing about it anyway because you'd probably not do so from a neutral point of view. To merit inclusion companies must meet a certain standard of notability which must be verified through reliable sources. _Gb^T/c 09:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Holotecture

Hello Gb! I posted article to my SandBox, like you said. Please be so kind and check if it's good enough for publishing. Thank You for your help! Direct Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ArhiMan/Sandbox ArhiMan (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking much better, but it could probably do with (1) being broken into sections to make it more manageable, in terms of reading, and (2) having more links to other relevant articles within in. _Gb^T/c 09:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)