User talk:BenTels

Follow Up from (my last night)

Dear BenTels,

RE: Last nights comments (Australian time anyway).

You stated "it's going to get nasty if we leave it going"

I read this sentence a certain way and it didn't seem productive.

My intention last night was simply to calm things down so peoples feelings didn't get in the way of removing this page's deletion request where the rationale for the original call for deletion was incorrect.

Now it is removed - you beaut!

On wards and upwards for making OpenIndiana a smashing success!

Kind Regards, Philip Haynes http://www.mercurien.com/ philip "dot" haynes at mercurien.com Haynesp (talk) 02:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dear Philip,

Last night, I think a lot of misinterpretation was going on. My concern was somewhat similar to yours, but with a different viewpoint. Like I said, my experience in these things is fed heavily from experience with meetings in industry. And that experience tells me that once things start going downhill in a meeting, they're not going to come back up – and the only thing to do is physically stop the conversation and make people leave the room before they start caving each other's heads in. That's why I started pushing heavily to close the debate: to prevent (virtual) bloodshed.

Regarding OpenIndiana, I'm not a contributor to the project. However, I do wish the project well, will follow it with interest and will try to keep the article up to date as best I can.

Best regards and hope to speak to you again at a later date! -- BenTels (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

bentels, i changed article Hindu jihad, you suggest this article for deletion. but i changed total irrelavant data's. thanks for your command. if you want to give any suggestion don't hesitage to give.92.98.32.251 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

hindu jihad article

Hello, Article Rescue Squadron invite. You have been invited to join the Article Rescue Squadron, a collaborative effort to rescue revised hindu jihad articles from deletion if they can be improved through regular editing. For more information, please visit the project page, hindu jihad and help rescue articles tagged for deletion and rescue.total irrelevant data's in this article is removed.--94.58.82.131 (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Mootros's talk page.
Message added 04:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Dennis van Uhm

The article Dennis van Uhm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable death of soldier and notability is not inherited

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TM 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Dennis van Uhm for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Dennis van Uhm, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis van Uhm until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. I think it is best to discuss it further at AfD. TM 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Sofie (surgical robot)

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch queen, Queen of the Netherlands, king verses queen

Hello Ben! Great job in fleshing out the article! Constructive criticism: May I suggest recasting some phrases for a more international audience?

It is quite well and understood that the use of 'King' within the Dutch constitution is to be understood as gender neutral. However, this English language wiki is focused for an international worldwide audience. Therefore, the use of a lowercase q for "queen Beatrix" is incorrect. In all cases, including in use on the the Dutch Royal House website, Queen Beatrix's title is capitalized even when referring to the queen in her role as head-of-state. The website, nor any source that I can see, qualifies the statement: This practice sometimes carries over into written language in Dutch, when the capitalized word "King" is used to distinguish the role of monarch from the person (who is then referred to as the uncapitalized "king" or "queen"). This may be a true nuiance within the Dutch language, but it does not have an English language counterpart. In fact, the only time when the title king or queen should be capitalized on Wiki should be when it is part of a formal title... Queen of the Netherlands and Queen Beatrix, verses the Dutch queen or Dutch kings and queens (monarch's in general).

Furthermore, while within the Netherlands (or England, Spain, ect) it is correct for local media write out and capitalize The Queen (when it is understood which queen they are speaking of), it is incorrect for Wiki as the title not capitalized except when used with a name or in the formal title. Queen of the United Kingdom verses English kings and queens, for example.

Otherwise, Ben, I think your doing a great job fleshing the article out!!! Keep up the good work! I do recommend more in text citations, however.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

deletions of Peter Ralston and Cheng Hsin

Hi BenTels,

I'm an instructor in London of a small martial art (perhaps 100 or so in Europe), and was somewhat surprised to have a student report that the wikipedia pages for that art had disappeared!

I'm not particularly familiar with wikipedia, but from scanning and looking for what has happened, I saw the 'fast deletion' process today, and I noted that you had put one of the articles up for rescue, but then apparently gave up.

I can't seem to find any extended discussion on this however, just a few comments on the 'Articles for deletion' pages. Do you know where I might be able to find the discussion which resulted in these being deleted, and how I might get involved in the process to 'resurrect' them if possible?

Cheers...

CCCharlie (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Charlie,

It sounds to me like you already found the bulk of the discussion (at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ralston). Essentially the problem was that nobody could come up with any sources establishing notability of either Peter Ralston or Cheng Hsin. That is, there are plenty of sources generally available online, but none that are independent of either Peter Ralston, Cheng Hsin dojos, or both. My attempt at the time focused mainly on finding independent sources for the championship that Ralston won, but I cannot even identify which championship it was.

Just to be clear, the main problem could very well be a lack of specialist knowledge and access to resources. In other words, a specialist may very well have access to resources not available to me or others. But for now there is/was no established basis for maintaining the articles. -- BenTels (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi BenTels,

Thank you, that is very clear.

I thought the Cheng Hsin and Peter Ralston articles were reasonably well attributed, but it's true it may not be easy to find independent resources online.

From looking at the notability guidelines, it appeared that articles in major newspapers or magazines would support notability. I saw references in the deletion discussion to a couple of newspaper articles, but they were small local papers.

Probably the most prestigious periodical to write on Ralston and Cheng Hsin was Black Belt magainze, in 1978 after his win of the 2nd World Chinese Kuoshu Tournament. At the time Black Belt was probably the preeminent martial arts magazine in the world. Luckily Google Books is a wonderful resource here!

Black Belt article (1978) on Ralston after winning the 2nd World Tournament...

For more reference on the Cheng Hsin school of those days, and the Kuoshu Tournaments, Ron Sieh talks about them in his autobiographical account of his life and training as a martial artist. Again, if you can't find the book, here is a Google Books reference to his time in the Cheng Hsin school when the world Tournament was taking place. He himself (Ron Sieh) competed in the 3rd Tournament in Hawaii in 1980. Ron Sieh - Gravity Never Stops

And here is the announcement in Black Belt Magazine for the 3rd World Tournaments, the one Ron Sieh attended...

Funny enough, in another wikipedia article, Pai lum, I also found references the both the 2nd and 3rd Tournaments (and others)...

Here is another well known magazine with an article on Peter and Cheng Hsin (sorry, no back issues online, but you can see the name of the article and subject. Probably not as prestigious as Black Belt Magazine, but nonetheless very well known in the Tai Chi world...), T'AI CHI magazine article (1987)

There is also a more recent well done interview with Peter done for the Dutch Tai Chi magazine Tajivizier. I can't find back issues online references, but pdf's have been put up on a Dutch Cheng Hsin school site. This may not qualify as independent enough though. One of the interviewers, Epi van de Pol, is an independent Dutch Tai Chi master, but Rob van Ham is a student of Peter's. The interview should be the top two hits of this search... Google Search for Tajivizier

Could you have a check of these references when you've a moment, and see if perhaps they are sufficient independent sources (particularly the Black Belt reference) to resurrect the article?

Cheers... CCCharlie (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Charlie. As you can see I am not very active of late. It may be a better idea to run this by the moderators or someone on the martial arts project. -- BenTels (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

torsion field article must be deleted, please make a real contribution not false one

you ignored wikipedia rules about neutral point of view! there are no reliable sources for torsion field article, the word "Pseudoscience" is just one word meant to suppress evolution and human values! but you accept that as ultimate truth (i wonder why)

Check this out:

In 2010 Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia, Mr. Boris Gryzlov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Gryzlov) gave an online interview (http://www.gazeta.ru/interview/nm/s3337459.shtml) «??????.Ru» “Gazeta.ru”,, where he commented the activities of "RANS" - the Russian Commission on Pseudoscience”. Chairman of the State Duma and Chairman of the Supreme Council of United Russia Party Boris Gryzlov denounced the activities of Commission on Pseudoscience of Russian Academy of Science (lead by ) as obnoxious (‘mrakobesy” Rus.) that work against development of Russia and her advances. He further named the commission’s scientific eloquence as “pearls” (an ironic substitute for an “obscene language” used by Commission to intimidate their opponents), which fell down below the intellectual level of top class experts in science.

He got over 6,000 complaints about the Commission’s activities

His Statement:

"The commission does not represent any of the legal departments of the Academy. The commission represents just the interests of few academicians, who stuck together as a group. Judging by the “pearls” of their “eloquences”, I may conclude that they do not perform at a level of the highest class professionals."

Gryzlov stated about his intention to detach “the commission from the Academy” the false group of scientists...from Russian Academy of Sciences (in one word: send them home)

Maybe its time make a real contribution since you ignored it many times in this torsion related article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.182 (talk) 08:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger or deletion of Mongrel complex

Hi BenTels, while merging is a frequent compromise at AfD, it seems a bit strange to simultaneously nominate an article for deletion and merging. Which do you think is the more appropriate course of action? You need not change anything, but I'd recommend withdrawing one of the proposals. If you'd like to merge, please add your rationale to Talk:Mongrel complex, which is currently a red link in the merge tag. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello BDD. I'm not sure. At first glance the mongrel complex just sounds like a term that a psychological layperson came up with for a specific instance of an inferiority complex. But I don't know enough about it to say whether or not it is more substantial than that or whether it is actually worth merging. I'll add that comment to the talk page as you suggest. -- BenTels (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

PEN Translation Fund Grants

I wanted to notify you that I have warned the authors of this article, which you nominated for deletion. SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The nomination process is slightly convoluted -- guess I overlooked doing that. BenTels (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong talk page

Hi there. You recently informed me of a proposed deletion on my talk page, but I didn't create the article. I've moved it to the relevant user's talk page here. Hope that's ok with you. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's great. Thanks! -- BenTels (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: ADW notability

Having coverage from a reliable source, and being bundled in a popular Android ROM. That isn't enough? ViperSnake151  Talk  15:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to my idea, no. Right now you've basically proven that the program exists, but nothing else. There are probably millions of software projects out there (especially if you count open source projects in incubators) whose existence has been announced. But WP does not cover all of them because just because a thing exists does not make it notable. In the case of software, I would say it needs a bit more.

For example, IBM WebSphere and Jetty (web server) are notable because of massive and pervasive use in the Java development community (which can be demonstrated). Conversely, NeXTSTEP is notable not because of heavy use but because of technological advances it made in the OS realm. Or, on a completely different tack, OpenSolaris was considered notable due to a combination of factors -- including the Oracle licensing controversies that sparked its creation.

So, from my point of view (which is the only one I can speak for, obviously), it boils down to this: is there anything that makes ADW.Launcher special or remarkable or, well, notable, beyond the mere fact of its existence? Does it (just pulling an example out of the air here) bring massive (and demonstrable) improvements to the usability of the platform that have persuaded people to use Android rather than iOS? Or is it a radical departure from the existing design philosophy of the existing platform? Or something else? -- BenTels (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Worlds Apart

Excuse me, but the deletion notice you placed on this article is ridiculous. I can't believe you'd do that. Clearly a hater. The article is near GA level and I'm doing work on the article. Plus, it has a lot of information about the episode. Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

A hater? I'm not from the US, so I don't know exactly what you mean there. Suffice it to say that I don't hate Falling Skies -- it doesn't run here and I hadn't even heard about it until yesterday.

I appreciate that you've done a lot of work on it. But it's an *episode*. I can see an article on the series, but one per episode? And yes, I know that STTNG has them and I don't think that's right either. Despite having grown up on STTNG. Moreover, you're citing references from all sorts of publications that either make offhand reference to the series or that are comprehensive entertainment/tv guide sites. Those don't establish notability, or don't establish notability for one particular episode (rather than the series as a whole).

But you know what? Fuck it. You like your article and I don't care enough. Take the prod down if you like, I won't put it back up. -- BenTels (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody else actually took it down because they realized how idiotic you were being. And what surprises you about an episode article for ALL episodes? That's incredibly normal... It's not just Star Trek: The Next Generation - countless others too! I think you clearly didn't read the references that I added. Offhand references to the series? LOL Let Me Eat Cake (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Somebody else actually took it down because they realized how idiotic you were being.

I saw. And sticks and stones may break my bones, but calling me names doesn't make you right.

And what surprises you about an episode article for ALL episodes? That's incredibly normal...

Yeah -- because the notability guidelines are incredibly broken for television series, books and other such media. Basically, the criteria for television series boil down to "if anybody anywhere voiced an opinion about it, good bad or indifferent, it is notable because that means the name of the thing appeared in a publication that prints reviews." So even if the reviewer says not to bother (effectively saying a thing is NOT notable) it is then notable because a reviewer said that it was not notable. So EVERY book, television episode, et cetera, is notable, because somewhere, someone will write something about it in a review of books or (in your case) TV guide/entertainment site because THAT'S THEIR JOB. So, basically, WP has maneuvered itself into becoming IMDB-for-all-media because effectively everything gets a free pass. Including episodes of TV series, which are mentioneded (as in the references you cited) because they are part of a series rather than on their own merit. Which doesn't matter, because it's black-on-white that counts rather than what is being said. -- BenTels (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

re: Notability of 2003 Rice Owls baseball team

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Talk:2003 Rice Owls baseball team.
Message added 17:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

John Musker Fillies' Stakes

Dear BenTels, I am quite new to Wikipedia and I don't completely understand your amendments to the John Musker Fillies' Stakes page. Its parent page is that of Great Yarmouth Racecourse, referred to above the table of winners. Is there something else I can do to clarify that? As for the unclear sourcing, I have now included a more precise website reference and a citation above the table. Is that sufficient?

You did not put in the warning at the top of the page about it possibly needing Wikifying, but if you could be more specific about what this might entail I would be grateful. Regards,Ravel59 (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ravel59, welcome on board!

The related page (Great Yarmouth Racecourse) doesn't need clarification -- you have a link in your text. Before my edits there was an explicit navigation link at the bottom as well, and that was unnecessary (since you have a link in the text). By the way, if you click on the history tab on the top of the page, you can see the entire editing history of any page.

The source you added unfortunately doesn't work -- it links to a search page, but doesn't show the results you intended.

About the Wikifying, I think that was probably about the navigation link I removed. In general though, there is a "show" link on the Wikifying box at the top of the page -- if you click there you will see hints about general issues. Also, if there is more you can say about the race (its history, organization, et cetera), that would also be good. :-) -- BenTels (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

BenTels, thank you for the quick and friendly reply. Yes, the Sporting Life page doesn't show the results, but one uses that page to search the race name one year at a time. That's what I did, anyway. As an alternative I realise I could cite Raceform Annuals for each year since 1993 as the source - they carry all results of racing on the flat. Perhaps I had better do that. If I can add anything more about the race I will. Best wishes,Ravel59 (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dudley O'Shaughnessy

Hello BenTels. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dudley O'Shaughnessy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is not substantially the same as the deleted version. A new deletion discussion is required. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no prob. I'll send it up. -- BenTels (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he's grown more notable since the last AfD, it's just that the article has been expanded. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand the consideration and agree with the assessment. I've started the AfD discussion. -- BenTels (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Samsung NX20

Hello, thank you for your attention to the Samsung NX20 article. I believe I have addressed your concerns on notability and sources and expanded the stub. Please visit again and if you agree that the issues have been addressed, remove the tags that you have added. Thanks! (Michael Barkowski (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Hi Michael,

I did some editing on the article and removed the templates. It may pass muster this way, but no guarantees on what anybody else might think. -- BenTels (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi BenTels, thanks for the improvements - nice writing. (Michael Barkowski (talk) 21:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Cavarrone's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thrissur Metropolitan Area.
Message added 10:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at The Determinator's talk page.
Message added 15:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Determinator p t c 15:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Anton Zingarevich

Hello there.

I was wondering why you tagged Zingarevich as not being notable? I believe the article establishes fairly well that he is the owner of Reading FC and has received significant media coverage in recent months. The article is lacking in information, true, but it isn't lacking reliable citations and I don't think Zingarevich's notability is particularly in doubt. I would appreciate feedback in order to help me improve the article. Thanks, SCIAG (talk) 17:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello SCIAG,

The reason I tagged the article as possibly not being notable (important distinction there :-) ) is that from the sources it looks right now as if Anton Zingarevich is only notable for having bought Reading and nothing else. Which is problematic due to notability rules surrounding people being notable for only one thing. Now, that doesn't mean that Anton Zingarevich is a bad subject for Wikipedia per sé -- but it would be good if you (or someone else) could show (with sources) that Zingarevich is notable for more than just having bought Reading. -- BenTels (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He is notable for being the owner over time, rather than simply exchanging money for shares. For example, he has invested heavily in the club's academy. He also received attention when the sports fund he was managing was linked to a takeover of Everton, something that for me fails 1E. I will clarify this. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIAG (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of comments at AfD discussions

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Dubourdieu.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hungarian football clubs in European competitions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Statυs (talk) 13:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DVBViewer

Hi, I have added some extra info on this with relation to its notability being Europe biased with some english (UK) review links listed so I'd appreciate if you could take another look, Thanks. Ezekial 9 (talk) 12:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Controlled Delay for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Controlled Delay is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controlled Delay until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 12:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Czarkoff's talk page.
Message added 12:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphan tag

Take a look at it, it got changed sometime recently. It now says that "no" other article links to it, not 3. I've reverted you again because of that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:Orphan still mentions 3 as the ideal number and WP:NPP still says to put the template up at fewer than 3. But I won't revert your edit again -- it's not worth the fuss. -- BenTels (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, BenTels. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poppentheater.
Message added 02:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited Behavior-driven development, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Game of Life, Keyword and Stack (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Tag bombing at Leyla Yunus

I was surprised to see the number of tags you dropped on Leyla Yunus--I wonder if some of these were some sort of accident? For example, it seems odd to put a "dead end" tag on an article with three wikilinks, or an orphan tag on an article with an incoming wikilink, or a BLP-sources tag on an article with a reference to the New York Times. No harm done, but I'm sure you'll understand my removing some of these. (Hopefully all, as I'll be doing a bit of cleaning up there.) Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Khazar2,

I just reviewed the revision of the article that I added the tags to.

First of all, the way I got to the article is by patrolling new pages. When I am doing that, I follow the instructions given at WP:NPP. Those instructions state to add an orphan tag if there are fewer than 3 incoming links from real articles. I can no longer see the exact state of the incoming links as it was then, but I am going to assume (fully for my own benefit :-) ) that there were fewer than 3 at that point.

For dead end, those same instructions say to put it up if there are "few" dead ends. The number of links at that point must have struck me as few (or I may have read over one of them).

The BLP-sources tag I can fully reconstruct. The sources that were cited in the revision that I reviewed (including the NYTimes sources) are not really about Leyla Yunus. They are coverage surrounding the raid on her offices with a few comments from her, which makes it possibly a notable event but they lend her personally notability for a single event only. So I tagged the article as needing more sources to support notability of Leyla Yunus as a subject.

As for removing the tags, sure. Every editor has the right to improve articles, so if you feel you have improved the article then go ahead and thanks for having put in the effort. -- BenTels (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)