User talk:GRBerry

I am also user GRBerry on Commons, Wikispecies, and (although I speak no German) de.Wikipedia. Messages intended for me on any of those projects may be left here, in which case I ask the poster to indicate which project they are talking about. GRBerry diff

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot or one of the newer substitute bots. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived to User talk:GRBerry/Archive 7. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Email advice: When able to be active on Wikipedia, I am more likely to read this talk page than I am to read email, as the email goes to my work email. So please reserve email for items requiring 1) confidentiality, 2) the format (forwarding other emails), or 3) some other really good reason for using email. Also, to help it get through my spam filters and to my attention, have the email subject line begin with "Wikipedia". If at all possible, I will respond on Wikipedia, because I believe that transparency is important, and each user I email lessens my privacy. GRBerry

At this point I became an admin. Subsequent archives are by Werdabot, so in the order conversations became stale rather than the order they were created.

Lightsource.com

You declined the WP:CSD#g4 on Lightsource.com because you said there was no previous AfD, but in fact there was: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightsource.com, which was speedied along and deleted. --Flex (talk/contribs) 18:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That AFD was closed due to the first speedy deletion, so the article wasn't deleted via AFD, and thus G4 doesn't apply. The purpose of the restriction on G4 is to limit it to pages deleted as the result of a community decision. The criteria exists because some users have persistently recreated pages the community said "no thanks" to, and it isn't worth wasting time on community discussion when somebody is just reposting the same content the community previously discussed. GRBerry 03:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: Please read

I am trying to obtain info about what it would take to satisfy Wikipedia's guidelines on allowing an entry for the Character/Person of Dr. Phineas Waldolf Steel to exsist and 'stick'. Could you please offer any assistance in the matter, as I am on a fact gathering mission and am currently in search for criteria? I can also be contacted at christiandiablo@gmail.com Thank you very much for your time and surely enough patience in this email. Christian Diablo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christian Diablo (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know which article this is in relation to. See Wikipedia:Notability (and related guidelines), Wikipedia:Amnesia test and Wikipedia:Independent sources for some general guidance that might apply to almost anything. GRBerry 22:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SD of B'nai Elim

Hi... I originally thought of nominating this article G4, but the criterion states that this is to be done only when the "the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version". As a non-admin, there's no way to tell whether that's the case. Is it reasonable to conclude, then, that this criterion is for admin use only? -- and if so, should WP:CSD#G4 be edited to make it clear that this is the case? Cheers. --Rrburke^(talk) 13:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only an admin can actually implement any deletion, G4 included, and the admins are responsible to cofirm that the speedy deletion criteria applies. Regular users can use {{db-repost}} to tag an article as a suspected repost for an admin to investigate. The deletion log of the article should contain a deletion summary linking to, or at least mentioning, the prior XfD discussion. If that was recent, Google's cache may still have the old article, or individuals who participated in the first XfD may remember what the article looked like. GRBerry 03:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overly aggressive user

I am writing to inform an admin about an overly aggressive user who consistently disobeys civility rules. VegitaU cannot make an kind of correction or apply a tag without harassing other users, and constantly threatens with having someone blocked. Since he's not an admin, this is an empty threat, but it's inappropriate, nonetheless. Thanks, JaMikePA 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I see that you are regularly getting warned about images that are at risk of deletion. Time, perhaps, to read the warnings, figure out why you are getting them, and revise images that you have uploaded to comply with our image policy so that they won't be at risk of deletion?

Other than that, I don't see where your dispute with him is. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution; asking a random admin to but in isn't very productive. GRBerry 22:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malmö Devilants

I closed the DRV and restored Malmö Devilants. The article is not appearing on my computer screen for some reason. It might be a computer delay, but if it is not, please see if you can restore it properly. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After deleting it, you created a redirect. history. When you restore the deleted edits, they are all older than the redirect, so it remains in effect. I see that you have now fixed this. GRBerry 16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a computer delay in the article history being restored and I kept going in circles. -- Jreferee t/c 16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Konstakuten

An article that you have been involved in editing, Konstakuten, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Konstakuten (2nd nomination). Thank you.

(You were the nominator of the last AfD, hence the notice.) --B. Wolterding 17:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Americans

As you are an admin, I wonder if you could look up the reasons for the deletion of List of English Americans and whether they were valid or worthy of challenge (I don't know how to do this). I believe this deletion was the 'trigger deletion' that then prompted the deletion actions against the rest of the 'List of foo American' articles that are now being reversed. Thanks Hmains 03:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should learn how to look this up :). What I do is click on the link you provided. Because the page doesn't exist, that takes me to an edit page for the former list, which shows the deletion log directly above the edit box. Most deleting admins put the reason for deletion into the log, often as a link. In this case, they did. So click on the link and you get taken directly to the AFD that resulted in deletion.

If the article had been recreated in some form, you'd use the history tab, which has a small link at the top "show logs for this page". Alternatively, you could use the "Logs" link in the toolbox (left panel). Once on the log page, select Deletion log in the drop down box, and put the article title in the Title box, and press Go. Another route to the log page is to select "my contributions" at the top, then select "logs" on the contribution page. Once there, you'll need to do the same steps as if you went directly from the toolbox and also clearing your username. GRBerry 13:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I tried that, but I guess not. Hmains 03:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade protection

Hi, is there any reason why you've cascade protected User:GRBerry/monobook.css and User:GRBerry/monobook.js? Since they are user stylesheet and javascript pages, they can only be edited by you and other administrators anyway, so this protection doesn't do anything. Thanks – Gurch 21:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, I didn't know they were automatically protected. Two, how can I trust that the automatic protection will stay in force? (This is a wiki.) Redundancy in design is a good thing, especially redundancy in security. Now if only there was a way to eliminate the ability of other administrators to edit them, I could be more comfortable. GRBerry 21:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The automatic protection will stay in force for the same reason everyone's password won't suddenly be reset to 'cheese'; it's part of MediaWiki's code and, unlike a wiki, only a handful of people can change that. What makes you so concerned that other administrators might edit them? You realize that anything they could add to your own personal stylesheet/javascript pages they could simply add to the site-wide stylesheet and javascript pages, and affect everyone? If you're that paranoid, I suggest you disable javascript, or perhaps avoid using the Internet altogether. Thanks – Gurch 14:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talia Madison

You closed the Talia Madison AfD and now the article is at DRV. Please feel free to comment at the DRV. -- Jreferee t/c 22:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DRV was closed before I saw this comment, and I never realized I was the closer of the AFD that led to the G4 deletions. Oh well, the AFD spoke for itself perfectly well, and in my opinion still does. GRBerry 18:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#AfD_concerns

Hi, sorry I got the issues sidetracked here. "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." Bearian 18:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't sidetrack that; the user who created both the other sections did by popping up with the same question there. Your question was legitimate, which is why I also answered it separately (after an edit conflict with you). GRBerry 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this exchange before. Bearian aplogized. And you told him it was unnecessary. I am not sure whether you are referring to me as the sidetracking user, or the other fellow with the different interpretation of {{blp}}. If you think it was me do you think I owe anyone an apology for this question? I realized, after the fact, that I had left some potential triggers in my query of October 16th. I regret that. My apologies. If you thought I wasn't sufficiently careful on the 24th, you can have my apology for that too.

You have been very helpful to me in the past. I particularly appreciate the several times you gave me a heads-up that someone had nominated an article I started for deletion, but had not chosen to honor the recommended courtesy of giving me a heads-up myself. If there is ever anything I can do for you, don't hesitate to let me know.

Cheers! Geo Swan 15:57, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, in my mind the side tracker is the user (whose name I don't recall) who had previously posted a missive in two other places and added it to this thread. I have no qualms about your behavior (though, as you know, I think many of these articles would be better off merged.) GRBerry 02:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for setting my mind at ease. Geo Swan 16:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 21:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

recevied and read. Thanks. GRBerry 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

discrepancies

Greetings!

I was grateful that you spoke up and voiced your opinion that {{blp}} did not require references be provably true, only authoritative and verifiable.

I asked User:Bearian, a new administrator, and I hope you don't mind me asking you, for advice on how to settle to everyone's satisfaction, the {{blp}} does not require references to be provably true?

Thanks! Geo Swan 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. FWIW, I am not really an expert at deletion review.

The first deletion review I requested was extremely clear cut case of failure to honour a hangon and everyone agreed that the article was going to hold merit. So I was confused as to why I then had to endure a second {{afd}}.

The second one confused me too, because I thought the discussion was supposed to be about whether the procedure was followed, but most of the participants wanted to discuss the article's merits. Geo Swan 23:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T-Rock DRV

Sources have been provided. Thanks for leaving your opinion. link. T Rex | talk 00:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese people Hmains 20:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Villebillies

db-band links directly to WP:MUSIC. If the article does not meet WP:MUSIC, then, no matter that they have one album released on a major label, it's still a speedy delete criterion, because it doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix 01:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may link there, but WP:CSD#A7 is the policy that governs {{db-band}}. WP:MUSIC in the template is just an informative link for editors trying to rescue articles. Many, many articles can survive WP:CSD#A7 without meeting WP:MUSIC. 01:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

not directory

Do you think you cqn rewrite it according to the comment you left of List of Ashkenazi Jews? it would facilitate more rational AfDs. DGG (talk) 03:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PR - mentorship where

i appreciate your attempts to keep things preventative, rather than merely punitive. however, i don't quite follow your reasoning that about this issue [1]. this issue has been repeating itself for at least 3 months and already both his mentors (discounting the sock) and a good number of more editors noted the user to stop. i believe PR is more than aware of what he is doing but he keeps trying, just as he kept calling me a war criminal after an ANI about that issue was already open. so, personally, i've lost my patience and i'm more than interested in preventative action. post-ANI link [2] (clarifies current issue). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and he have a dispute. The two of you need to solve it. You can find a way to work amicably together (best), you can find a way to ignore each other (acceptable), or you can both end up in advanced forms of dispute resolution. I think if you go the third path, both of you will end up under sanctions. My advice is to either find a way for each of you to ignore the other, or to find a way to work together. I'd recommend you both practice Wikipedia:Writing for the enemy. GRBerry 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You and he have a dispute." - honestly, you've left me speechless. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sokolče

Hi, why did You revert back incorrect redirect Sokolče-Sokolce? It is usually and due to logic that we have redirects like Zilina-Žilina, Kosice-Košice, Roznava-Rožňava, but make it in opposite way ? We have in Slovakia town Zvolen, so I can make redirects: Žvolen-Zvolen, Zvoleň-Zvolen, Zvolén-Zvolen, Žvoleň-Zvolen, etc... ? Please, delete that, that was created as mistake by non-Slovak user, it is not just incorrect, but also confusing, because in Slovakia existed real village Sokolče (now inundated) and we noticed it in article of Stan Mikita, who was born there. Nice day and thank You for understanding --kelovy 17:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear.

I won't bother you with my understanding of what a mentor should be like! PR^talk 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete review req

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Marion Smith. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Setanta 05:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete review req

This is my first time on Wikipedia and I'm trying to gather the differences of what is needed and what is not. The article in question is for Academic Management Systems. I'm trying to write an encyclopedic worthy article, much like CBS corporation and Pepsi, but am unable to do so due to the deletion. How can I appeal this decision until I'm finished editing the article? I am still learning how to add things like a table and other things and when i was just typing article and tried to save originally, it never saved and deleted all of my work which is why I am saving more piece-meal to make sure my work doesn't get lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarskig (talk • contribs) 15:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be first to check WP:CORP, if you haven't done so already. Then, put the "spammy" text in your sandbox (here: User:Awarskig/sandbox), and work it from here until you feel it's encyclopedic. Policies you might want to check WP:N, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Last but not least, check how to write a good article. Good luck.--victor falk 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Louisdale, Nova Scotia

By deleting it, I'm unable to see what was happening. Can you explain in details what happened? Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try, but I didn't fully sort the details; indeed; some of the explanation below I am sorting out in more detail now than I did earlier. I'm not sure what the conflict is about or who the real participants are; it appears to be a non-Wikipedia conflict spilling over onto us. That may be an ethnic conflict element from the looks of it, which surprises me for Nova Scotia. (But honeymooning there certainly doesn't make me an expert on the province's history).

The old copyright violation is from this geocities website or some other clone thereof. It was originally added in September 2006 by User:Johncena325.
Sometime in the next 12 months, the copyright of that section was questioned by a comment at the top of it, but nothing was really done.
On 5 September 2007, User:Uglybaraco222 described the history as bogus and added a lot of material that was either based on, or copied from [louisdaleisgrandiqueferry.piczo.com this site]. This was reverted as vandalism by a recent changes patroller.
On 7 September 2007, User:Billpeters888 was next along; he didn't make any immediately obvious substantive changes to the article.
The article stated essentially unchanged to 31 October 2007, but the alert about copyright issue vanished, as did all vestiges of sourcing. At this point the history section covered settlement to 1856.
On this date, User:142.167.242.246 came and roughly doubled the length of the history section going up to 1962 (clearly a copyvio from somewhere, I'm not sure where) added a WP:BLP violation regarding "Father Gary MacPherson", and encouragements to go to this [www.fathergaryisafake.piczo.com attack/dispute site].
A RC patroller flagged for speedy deletion. I confirmed that the community is a real place, and declined and flagged the article on 31 October. We had subsequent edits by User:142.167.227.227. When I had more time for review (wee hours this morning), I came back and eliminated the BLP violation and reference to the dispute site. At some point in here [www3.sympatico.ca/cormier.jp/other_html_history_of_louisdale.html. this] got claimed as a source.
Then, near 11 AM Atlantic time today, User:Grandiqueferry revised the "History" section title to be "Revisionist History" and referenced the same site that Uglybaraco222 had used. An RC patroller reverted as vandalism, then User:Toddst1 spotted the copyright violation.
I deleted the old copyright violation, completely eliminating the history section.
Grandiqueferry readded some of the copyright violating material, and Toddst1 listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 November 2/Articles.
I happened to make the next addition to the copyright problem page, confirmed that it was a repeated copyright violation, and deleted the problem edits again. I then protected and requested help.

That is the mess, as best I can sort it out. It looks like an outside conflict spilling over onto us, combined with violations of copyright, violations of WP:NOR, and possible sockpuppetry. Why this is occurring over a small community in Nova Scotia is beyond me. GRBerry

Wow, insane. Andrew⁶⁴⁷ 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belt Alliance fighter

I have read the guidlines and from my understanding and also from my viewing of the other starship pages my page is perfectly in line... tell me specifically what I missed and I'll do what I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caltair (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSBot copycat

Allright, that was amusing. I guess this means CSBot's activity is now considered so "normal" that even vandals recognize its significance. :-) — Coren ^(talk) 02:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vedanta Society of Western Washington

Dear GRBeryy, just curious about deletion of this page. It is stated: 08:15, 3 November 2007 GRBerry (Talk | contribs) deleted "Vedanta Society of Western Washington" ‎ (WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation of [3]

Now, that page did perhaps violate copyright content, at http://www.vedanta-seattle.org/, but certainly none of the material was from the "band history" page you cited. Trust this was an error, and that you meant to put the other site. Sw.my 04:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, that was a mistake. Log corrected. GRBerry 13:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sw.my 06:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Kimbell misunderstanding

Hello, there may have been an error when you deleted the page, Gail Kimbell? The page was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G12. The information on the page was taken from the U.S. Forest's Service's Web Site: About the Chief. This information is public domain. As stated in the policy for speedy deletion (WP:CSD#G12) there must be "no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a free license" for a page's speedy deletion. The problem is, this information was taken from a government website which under the Wikipedia:Public domain policy is public domain. It is also stated under the U.S. Forestry Service's Privacy Policy that the information presented on the website is considered public information and "may be distributed or copied unless otherwise indicated". Bottom line, it is not copyrighted material and should not have been deleted. If I have overlooked something, since I am still new at Wikipedia, please leave a comment. Thank you, --Cladestine 23:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was dumb of me. You are correct that U.S. government works are in the public domain. Restored. Tagged for wikification; as it does need some rewriting to match the usual Wikipedia style. GRBerry 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. I'll try to work on its' wikifaction. --Cladestine 20:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that they would be copyright violations

Just because they seemed so similar in style to the other pages that were definitely copyvios.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't helpful, because we need more evidence. To delete as a copyright violation we need to know of what. From Wikipedia:Copyright problems#Instructions for special cases "Probable copyvios without a known source: If you suspect that an article contains a copyright violation, but you cannot find a source for the violation (so you aren't sure that it's a violation), do not list it here. Instead, place {{cv-unsure|~~~|2=FULL_URL}} on the article's talk page, but replace FULL_URL with the full URL of the article version that you believe contains a violation. (To determine the URL, click on "Permanent link" in the toolbox area, and copy the URL.)" GRBerry 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Remembrance...

Image:Lest We Forget.png --nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Edwards

Hi,

Could you weigh in on the move debate on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian)? Thanks.Brian0324 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemaven/Zana Dark

Hey, thanks for catching that typo! GlassCobra 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morrison

Hello, I am curious if you would like to weigh in on whether this page should be moved back to simply Robert Morrison as a WP:DISAMBIG#Primary_topic? See Talk:Robert Morrison (missionary). Thanks for your input.Brian0324 22:01, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrude Baniszewski

I was just curious about why you reverted the addition of a death date with reference & the correction of the year of trial, which was supported in the reference? Thanks. Wildhartlivie 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a screw up. For some reason, that I don't now recollect, I'd thought the editor was making bad edits. I know that I didn't notice the reference. GRBerry 03:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm just glad to find someone who will say that!! Wildhartlivie 04:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internationalised Curriculum

Please unprotect so that I may add this again as I believe it has been deleted for all the wrong reasons. Despite my efforts to look for references the article kept being delete...very frustrating...so here are a reem of references and there are many more to show this IS a term that needs inclusion as it IS a widely discussed anissue in the academic world. Wikipedia is a place many will look for this type of information. It should not be relegated to Googlepedia. Please favourably consider my request ao that we can proceed positively. Thank you 124.120.36.147 07:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1. Queens University Belfast: http://www.qub.ac.uk/directorates/AcademicStudentAffairs/CentreforEducationalDevelopment/InternationalisingtheCurriculum/ "....lobal context should therefore be a central aim of an internationalised curriculum."[reply]

2. http://pdfdownload.randomlypoked.com/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Flsn.curtin.edu.au%2Flearn_online%2Fdocs%2FInternationalise.pdf&images=yes "WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT AN INTERNATIONALISED CURRICULUM?"

3. http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php "http://www.cebe.heacademy.ac.uk/learning/curriculum/index.php" "Current teaching practices/your experience in delivering an internationalised curriculum "

4; Oxford Brooks University: http://www.brookes.ac.uk/services/ocsld/online/international_curriculum/index.html "The internationalised curriculum

* Book now: 2 April - 2 May 2008

This course is designed to introduce you to the wide-ranging concept of an internationalised curriculum and to work through a practical application to a programme with which you work."

5. Griffith University: http://www.griffith.edu.au/landt/goodpractice/pdf/Item%209_Internationalisation%20of%20the%20curriculum%2004_0858.pdf "The Group is responsible for providing the resources for the training of staff in awareness of and commitment to the need for an internationalised curriculum and for process in updating and changing curriculum as required."

6. Univesity of South Australia: http://www.unisanet.unisa.edu.au/learningconnection/staff/practice/internationalisation/documents/InternationalisationCurriculumPerth.pdf "In 1995 a typology of internationalised curriculum was published (IDP Education Australia 1995)." Also refer IDP Education Australia 1995 publications.

This page was protected by User:RHaworth due to repeated recreation of spam at multiple article titles. I am not willing to assume on blind faith that the next creation would not also be spam needing deletion. Nor can an IP editor create a page. An established Wikipedian can write a draft in their userspace and present it for review at deletion review. Such a draft will have to adhere to policy and guidelines. GRBerry 14:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ironfurnaces.com

Greetings. I would just like to introduce you to my site, ironfurnaces.com, that is dedicated to cataloging all of the historic iron furnaces around the world (no matter how little content is available). I do not take information from places to put it on my site, instead I would rather have people come and put information on there themselves. I invite you to become an editor on the site and load some photos and a brief history if you would like. This site is completely free to view or edit and contains no advertisement or pop-ups of any kind. (And uses the Wikimedia software.)Rhammond 10:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Wolfowitz

It seems we've reached a consensus on the disputed point.[4] It's probably ok to unprotected, but that's to your discretion. Thanks for stopping the edit war. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Alexander (Cartoonist)

Morning! You may remember speedy deleting the above article last month. It appears it was recreated under a different name on the very same day by a disgruntled supporter of the aricle. Please see my post on the subject here. It has already been independently renominated for deletion but the discussion was rather stunted due to only those who took part in the article's stealth recreation being present! :D Given it's a straight reproduction of this previously (twice and one review) deleted article I'd request this be deleted straight off the bat. At the very least it should be relisted in AfD. Many thanks. Hen Features 05:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask a more experienced admin to review. I'm too tired right now, and it isn't critically urgent. GRBerry 05:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]