User talk:DESiegel/Archive 7

This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES ^(talk) 17:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typos

Hi! I don't want to be rude or anything, but your userpage even says it. I'd just like to suggest the Google toolbar, which has a built-in spell checker and many other useful tools. When you click spell check, all errors are highlighted and can easily be fixed. Cheers! Reywas92^Talk 01:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and Thanks

I am sincerely sorry if I irritated you (which it appears I did by your personal response to me) .. I did not mean to trouble you in the least bit. AS I said before I barely know what I am doing when it comes to posting.. please delete anything I wrote as you clearly told me I wrote in the wrong place. I appreciate you guiding me in the correct direction ( I hope I do it right and not make anyone else mad).

By the way I only wrote once to you regarding this issue so I am sorry if it was once too many for you but please, in the future, I would ask you to go a little kinder on us old folks..we are easily confused by all this new technology and mean no harm- we just need the guidance of those with experience like you.

Again thanks for your help.. and my apologies if I shouldn't be writing here either.. not sure where is the "right' place to go to respond to your message. (I don't even know what those little 4 squiggles next to my name and date mean but you told me to do them so I am)

Thanks J. Adams 71.160.50.16 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 1, 2007 71.160.50.16 07:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overapplying A7

Another example for you to add to your collection :). At Talk:Barnraisers two editors (one an administrator) have argued that Barnraisers (a band article) qualified for A7 even though the article cited a profile of the band in an independent publication. (Of course it's just my opinion that this article is not A7-able; you may disagree. It's also a moot point now as the article is at AFD.) Pan Dan 12:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Knight

Hi! I noticed that you closed the AfD on Patrick Knight as no consensus. First of all I'm not here to contest your close - looking through it I don't see how it could have been closed as anything else and I'm not in the business of beating dead horses. However, you may have noticed the fierce personal attack he launced at the bottom of the AfD. When Talmage warned him about it he responded very arrogantly and with no remorse whatsoever on his talk page. Could you please have a word with him about civility, ownership of articles and his attempts at wikilawyering because his behaviour on the AfD and our talk pages were a significant reason why the AfD got so heated. He basically started by claiming that the article could not be changed because the Amensty International report that had been copy and pasted into the article was released under a GFDL compatible license (or so I understood him) and therefor no one was allowed to change the article without his approval. That's not how we behave here on Wikipedia and I do believe that given his history of personal attacks and removal of warnings with edit summaries like piss off someone needs to explain to him that civility breeds civility and incivility breeds incivility. Thanks, MartinDK 08:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read your response on MartinDK's talk page and I wanted to clarify a few points. I never used the word plagiarized until Jachin started adding edit summaries to the Patrick Knight page such as this: Talmage, I know you're gunning to have this article deleted, but your deletion of segments instead of altering / ammending / changing them is surmounting to vandalism IMHO. I also objected to using Amnesty International as a primary source of information for the article because Amnesty International is in no way neutral in its reporting. This sourced web site was labeled as an "urgent call to action" and like all advocacy groups, AI can be expected to accentuate or even exaggerate facts that support its position while omitting or misrepresenting facts that detract from its position. This isn't criticism of AI per se, but rather criticism of essentially cutting and pasting large chunks of text from an advocacy group website which used terms such as "judicial killings." Furthermore any assertion that my personal POV influenced this AfD nomination is ludicrous. I believe murderers whose crimes were so notorious that they left a lasting impact on society (such as Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer) or murders and/or victims who received massive, intensive media coverage (such as Kelsey Smith, Jessie Davis, and Scott Peterson) deserve articles. Patrick Knight was never the subject of intense coverage, but rather widespread news blurbs that rarely delved into anything more than his joke contest (which I believe is evidenced by the external links). I think typically murderers whose cases result in establishing legal precedent ought to generally not have personal articles, but rather articles specifically about their cases (since it is the case that is notable, not the individual). I simply believe Patrick Knight is not notable. I do not accept that his case was significant in any way for the reasons I've previously laid out. I accept that no consensus has been reached, and I'll look back at this page in a month or two. If I still believe notability has not been established, I will nominate the article for deletion again. Unless it is improved, I suspect deletion would be more successful in the future since I think many of the people who stumbled upon the article did so after hearing a news blurb, but in a few weeks nearly everyone will have forgotten Patrick Knight, since he lacks real notability. As a final thought, I think the only thing halfway notable relating to Knight is his joke contest, so if the article were to be retained without much change, it would be better to rename it "Patrick Knight Joke Contest". Talmage 00:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only going to add a couple small points. Regarding incivility, I don't think the term plagiarism was inappropriate, nor was it a personal attack. As far as the term propaganda is concerned, the choice of words was deliberate. AI strongly opposes the death penalty. As such they issue these urgent calls for action for a great number of people on death row. Every case in which the defendant does not plead guilty always has at least some issue that can be nitpicked. I believe AI often tends to exaggerate (undue weight) the significance of largely irrelevant aspects of a case in an attempt to prove their point. This is nothing specific to AI, but a common trait of advocacy groups. Exaggerate your strengths, minimize (or omit) your weaknesses. And now for my disclosure, I don't personally have much of an opinion about the death penalty, so I have no POV to push. However after hearing about my supposed POV, being accused of having a sockpuppet, and being insulted multiple times in the edit history and AfD discussion, my tone may have hardened a little, but I never once made any personal attack, nor did I question Jachin's motivations. Talmage 05:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Diablo Swing Orchestra

Ok thanks. I wasn't sure so I tagged it for someone else to review, rather than possibly making a mistake. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Songs About Mental Illness

Actually, the vote was 5 to 3, if it's strictly numbers that we're going by. Read the debate again. Mandsford 16:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your expressed opinion was "Take down and Retool" which i can't interpret as a form of keep. Indeed it could have been counted as "userfy and delete" making the numbers 6 to 2. However, as I explained in the close, I went by considerably more than just the numbers. Do you think the close was in error? DES ^(talk) 16:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As with Mr. Fizyx, who also takes the approach of trying to edit rather than delete, I think the article is worth enhancing. I respect the statement that the attempted editing so far was insufficient, and that this would be moved into a location where editing can be done. Suggestions on making this better would be appreciated. Obviously, most artists will not say "this is about post-traumatic stress disorder"; and you are correct that interpretations, such as "well, she's obviously singing about someone with clinical depression", aren't valid. Sourcing will take more than a few days, obviously, though some of the singers have stated that what their song was about, and I think it can be done. Mandsford 16:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jocker City

Hi DESiegel. The comment you made at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 7#Jocker City would appear to be based on a misconception - the "city" in question doesn't exist, so it will be actually be impossible to find sources for it. Now that I have made this clear, I assume you no longer want to send it to articles for deletion, right? Picaroon (Talk) 00:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's evidence: there are eight Google hits outside of Wikipedia for "Jocker City," and they are all in reference to some Myspace stuff. As far as Wikipedia:Verifiability is concerned, there are zero sources, because none of those pages could possibly be constured as reliable. Furthermore, check the deleted history. Not only is every single creator a sockpuppet of banned users, these sockpuppets can't even agree where the fabled "Jocker City" is supposed to be. Some revisions say the UK, and some say Canada! I think this pretty clearly shows that "Jocker City" does not exist. Picaroon (Talk) 04:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trapped in Paradise (Diagnosis: Murder epidode)

Is there a way to correctly name the Trapped in Paradise (Diagnosis: Murder epidode) article? It seems pretty obvious that "epidode" should be "episode". There are a lot of articles that link to it so it may require some careful reword/move and maybe redirecting. Truthanado 02:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Thank you very much. The Resolved checkbox is very distinctive. Truthanado 01:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deletion Review

the guy who made that strange NN/BLP deletion has also made single-handed deletion as "OR" [1] , & deleted the admitted nonsensical but long pages He became a admin on or about June 17 & has mostly stuck to images and talk pages and such. DGG (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have commetned on his talk page. Interestigly his comments here on a related issue I find myself in pretty close agreement with. It is only when BLP intrudes that he seems to get over-eager. i haven't reviewd any of his image deletions, of course. DES ^(talk) 20:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read through your comments on my talk and I think we have differing styles of adminship. I think your comments on my talk page suggest that every deletion must follow either a speedy criteria, WP:PROD, or WP:AFD, but I disagree with that idea. Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy, and no process must be followed in every case. In the relatively few cases where I feel that it is better for the encyclopedia, I am willing to follow WP:IAR, WP:UCS, and WP:SNOW in doing what I believe is the right thing.

Critical Analyse of Islamic Cultural Politics and West was clearly OR, including sentences like 'In my opinion the September 11 events is a product of postmodernism since the distinction between image and reality have been evaporated and everything justified by reference of “power, secularism ”on one side and by “religious absolute” on the other side." When I deleted it, I left a message for the (single) author of that article [2] and he seemed to accept the deletion as he didn't respond, request undeletion, or make any other effort to restore the article. I take that as strong evidence that the author of the article accepted my reasoning, and I hope I can convince you to review the contents and do the same. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

it is perfectly appropriate yo ask an author to consider whether they would not do better if the requested the deletion of an article. I've already done this twice today. When I do it, I generally also put a prod to start the deletion processing running if they do not. That's all that's necessary.Try it that way. deletion is the last resort DGG (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and there's something else you might want to consider. I know I would !vote to delete this article if it were in that condition at AfD. But its a value judgement, and I do not trust any one person's judgements in this, but rather the community. Speedy is for the stuff that is indisputable DGG (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would also vote to delete it, and you feel most other people would as well, then WP:SNOW applies: "If an issue doesn't even have a snowball's chance in hell of getting an unexpected outcome from a certain process, then there is no need to run it through that process." That includes the deletion process. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Basu

CBM insists that I can't mention Joy Basu's play unless I give a source. While this is technically within policy, I do not understand the point. There is nothing remotely negative about claiming someone wrote a play that has been performed by a mainstream theater group, and it would be extremely difficult to get sources (I will have to go to physical newspaper archives and hunt for reviews). Why does he insist upon contesting such a non-controversial assertion? This is not covered by BLP. Loom91 08:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could ask me about it, rather than asking someone else to interpret my actions. Are you saying that no reference at all exists for the play, not even a published manuscript or published review? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give an example of how I can cite a program? Thanks. Loom91 15:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Loom91 19:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help?

I noticed that you are one of the administrators participating in the discussion section of the speedy deletion page, as well as a 'wiki-janitor', and I was wondering if you could help me, or point me in the right direction -

I need a number of images deleted that I uploaded, which are almost all listed under PD-old. None of them are being used in any articles.

What can I do?

Below is a list of the images.

Thanks alot, Mrlopez2681 05:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users

Did you not notice but the user was under the impression his other pages had been deleted -in his message to me he said he had to create another user page as his account was deleted (which it wasn't. Really we should await his return and his own preferences rather than any further action. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mattken's message to me : Oh, and my account got deleted for some reason so I'm mattkenn4, not mattkenn3, mattkenn2, or mattkenn. Can't you wait until Mattken returns -if he still wants all the pages he can then but I only reacted due to this message to me he left ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he only created the new accounts under the belief that all his previous accounts can been deleted . Its odd isn't it as they clearly all exist!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look do what you want. I never tamper with people users pages - it was a reaction to his four user pages when he has told me in the past he has had trouble with "previous" accounts. - I thought I was doing him a favor. How many users have four legitimate pages different user pages ?? Now I'd rather get on editing more important stuff. We'll have to wait and see what Matt wants Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 15:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my accounts

His most recent message is as follows which is exactly what I knew the response would be but fair enough I shouldn't have been tampering with user pages officially -you know I was trying to make it less confusing for him! -

"I am very confused with my accounts, and am happy that you're trying to help me with them. Here, I'll tell you what is happening. I started my first account, mattkenn, last year. But one day, about four months after I made the account, I went to log-in and it said I had the wrong password, but I didn't. I tried to get on my account a few more times but it wouldn't let me on. So I made mattkenn2, and it did the same thing about two months after it was made. So I made mattkenn3, and it did the same thing in about three months. So that's how I got to mattkenn4, and if I don't figure out what's going on, I'll probably be mattkenn5 in a few months. So if you can tell me what's happening just tell me. Then after I know what's going on and we get it fixed, I can merge them and be just one person, instead of four. Thanks."Mattkenn4 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist talk page

Why did you delete the talk page of Zeitgeist the movie? --Trekerboy

Because the page Zeitgeist the movie had already been deleted, and after a look at it I saw no reason to challenge that deletion. Therefore WP:CSD#G8 (talk pages of nonexistent or deleted pages) applied. If we are not going to have an article Zeitgeist the movie, there is no good reason to have Talk:Zeitgeist the movie. If you think that Zeitgeist the movie was deleted improperly, take it up with the deleting admin, or got to deletion review. i don't think that many will agree with you, but i could be wrong, i have been before. DES ^(talk) 18:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you for the explanation. I will take it up with the admin that protected it. Thanks for taking the time to respond. --Trekerboy 19:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite welcome. DES ^(talk) 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the accounts

The problem with my accounts is that every month or two, when I try to log-in, it tells me that I have the wrong password, but it's the right one. I log-in every other time and it's good, but every month or two it says i have the wrong password, and I don't! So I try logging-in a few more times and it won't let me in. So I just forget about it and make a new account with a link to my old accounts. So just tell me what you think is happening to my accounts, and then we'll do the part where I pick my account and retire all the others. Post your answer on my talk page so I can get it easier. Thanks.Mattkenn4 19:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HIs response to me -I knew this was exactly what the response would be but I shouldn't have really been tampering with users pages -but I really was trying to make it less confusing for him:

"I am very confused with my accounts, and am happy that you're trying to help me with them. Here, I'll tell you what is happening. I started my first account, mattkenn, last year. But one day, about four months after I made the account, I went to log-in and it said I had the wrong password, but I didn't. I tried to get on my account a few more times but it wouldn't let me on. So I made mattkenn2, and it did the same thing about two months after it was made. So I made mattkenn3, and it did the same thing in about three months. So that's how I got to mattkenn4, and if I don't figure out what's going on, I'll probably be mattkenn5 in a few months. So if you can tell me what's happening just tell me. Then after I know what's going on and we get it fixed, I can merge them and be just one person, instead of four. Thanks.

♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I see it looks like his password appeas to have an expiry date - this can be fixed in my preferences can't it? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did log-in to mattkenn3 but i couldn't get in mattkenn2 and mattkenn.Mattkenn4 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

I would just like to thank you for helping me with my accounts. I think That I have everything all figured out now and that I'm so thankful that you were around to help me.Mattkenn3 20:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I must admit I hadn't heard of password expiration!!! - I was trying to figure out why Matt's password appeared to be malfunctioning!!. If you could correct it like I tried to do earlier this would be very helpful indeed. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we merge them back please? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 20:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt has confirmed that he wants to keep Mattken 2 and Mattken 3 but delete Mattken and Mattken four see

User talk:Ernst Stavro Blofeld#Confirmation ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" Contribs} 21:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So everyone understands what's going on now?Mattkenn3 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UAA

You can edit the blacklist at User:DeadBot/UAABadwords. Feel free to refine it how you want. I am working on things such as whitelists, and flags for ENDOFNAME etc. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 20:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable, and a lot are valid. I am considering regex matching, however Java's regex is non-standard and so it may cause problems. A whitelist suste, and flags will be worked on this afternoon, when I am back home. If necessary, i'll suspend this task, but for now i'll just recommend users prune the blacklist to whatever is necessary. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you...

I gave you a barnstar for being so nice to me. Thanks again.Mattkenn3 21:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Thanks for your reply.

I own prints of a number of these images, but I just found out recently that they are in fact copyrighted images. I went through all the images I have upoladed which are copyrighted and listed them in the message I sent you, and went ahead and took them off of any page they were in.

The gentleman that owns the copyright has informed me that he would like them removed.

--Mrlopez2681 03:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Tagging of Enlisy==

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Enlisy. I do not think that Enlisy fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because This discusses the product fairly factually, it is simpy not blatent spam. I request that you consider not re-tagging Enlisy for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES ^(talk) 02:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you replaced this tag in this edit saying "DO NOT.....DO NOT remove tags" but the tag was removed in this edit by an editor who had not previously touched the article, not by the creator. Any good-faith editor other than the creator can, of course, remove speedy tags if the editor judges them unwarrented. DES ^(talk) 02:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Typically when an editor removes the "Speedy Deletion" tag I will review the article again and either agree with the other editor or place the article in "Afd". Regarding the replacement of the "Speedy Deletion" tag in this instance, I just overlooked that an other editor was involved an assumed it was the original author. And yes I am aware about assumptions! I hang my head in shame. Sorry about that. Have a great dayShoesssS ^Talk 10:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being such a jackass.

You're right, I should've nominated it. I'm sorry for being such a jackass. TheBlazikenMaster 16:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. TheBlazikenMaster 16:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is perfectly good as a userbox, I should've nominated, you didn't do anything wrong, I did, I speedied it, I shouldn't have, sorry for being such a jackass. TheBlazikenMaster 16:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know it wasn't valid. I will be more careful next time. I'm not even gonna nominate it as it seems good as a userbox to me. TheBlazikenMaster 16:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:recent talkpage edit

Thank you for telling me about this. I didn't know that editors were allowed to do this without archiving. But I saw it as vandalism as a lot of vandals recently have been doing this. I will be more careful when reverting in future. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 18:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again but I have one question though. What do we do about his current edit to User talk:Ubersmackgames as it's not exactly being used as a talk page. It's the exact same thing on his User page but I feel the one on his talk page is more serious. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 18:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that sounds fair. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C

Deletion of The Honch article

I don't understand why you would justify deletion of "The Honch" entry, although it may seem like a travel guide to you, it was extremely full of information regarding the tradition and history of the famous Yokosuka strip. You have taken a reference guide that I and many of those who serve in the US Armed Forces stationed in Japan could have found useful. Thank you for making a time of war even more inconvienent, and way to thank those who serve your country by deleting an article that was written by those who serve and defend the world's freedom. "The Honch" is not just a glorified "Las Vegas" style strip in Japan, but for many of us who are defending freedom, it's a place to get away from the horrors, and unbearable situations of war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.43.11 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 July 2007

I am going to ignore the emotional rhetoric about "time of war". An article allegedly useful to those visiting an area is precisely a travel guide, some include more history than others. This content might well fit into Wikitravel, and I'll be happy to send a copy to anyone who wants to post it there. The historical sections were not supported by sources, and much of the detail was not encyclopedic. If this area is actually famous, a proper article, discussing that history and citing sources, and leaving out the kind of info more appropriate to a travel guide, would be welcome. DES ^(talk) 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I didn't make the decision, i merely reflected the consensus of those who commented in the AfD discussion. If you really think the discussion was closed improperly, see deletion review. DES ^(talk) 00:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Darwin

The article on the Complete Works of Charles Darwin Online is a descriptive article about a major internet project under the most reputable sponsorship, supported by ref. from RS reviewing sources. (I can easily add a few more). Please restore it. (thought I'd ask you first) DGG (talk) 02:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Could I ask you to please re-write to reduce the "promotioal-flyer" tone of the articel itself? I realy can see why an editor tagged this with db-advert. DES ^(talk) 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

could you please check the current versionDGG (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Could you reconsider your argument here? You are probably mistaken with another discussion. Neither of the AfD's were speedily closed, last time I checked. Sr 13 02:57, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ubersmackgames

Thanks for informing me that it was speedy deleted. I missed that in the comment above mine. hmwith talk 13:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Wiles

Hi, You deleted Terry Wiles stating that it is a blatant infringement of the www.terrywiles.20m.com website that I also wrote. I cannot infringe my own copyright surely? Please restore the article. Jack1956 07:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reason given for deletion at prod

Please see the history of Weston Collegiate Institute, the reason given for the prod--and for my removal of it. You might also be interested in my latest comment at Requests for Verification.DGG (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you beat me to it--unless the sports stuff was imaginary, there would have been sources. DGG (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never guessed it. As a byproduct, one of the alumni was a member of Science Council of Canada, which is a redlink; I find it closed in 1993 which is why we don't have it-- from the Canadian Encyclopedia via Google, and it is obviously worth an article: 30 select members. Once you start editing, there's nowhere to stop... Thus, projects at sourcing & otherwise improving WP have to go slowly, or they miss all this stuff. DGG (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly reconsider

Thank you for your kind explanation, Mr. Admin. I put up a new speedy request explaining my reason and at the same time invoking Right to vanish. Please reconsider, I don't see anything substantial in my Talk Page that is worth keeping or would be of benefit to anybody except to please the ego trip of harassing admin wannabe User:MSJapan who has a history of being blocked twice for edit warring and who keeps on acting like he owns WP. - Watchtower Sentinel 01:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least three different administrators and one experienced editor who is not an admin and has not been involved with you as far as I know have now told you that policy, including the right to vanish, does not include the deletion of the history of your talk page, although it does include the deletion of your user page and of any sub-pages of your user and user talk pages. User talk pages with significant history are not normally deleted, even when a user leaves the project, particularly when they contain the history of significant accusations of policy violations. . Please drop this unless you want to take the matter to WP:MFD. I would have left this msg on your talk page, but that is now protected with a notice that you have left the project. DES ^(talk) 16:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

These images must be deleted

In order to get these images deleted as soon as possible, I have changed thier licensing tags. I know that images with no fair use rationale get deleted ASAP, so I went ahead and changed the tag.

These images are in fact copyrighted, so they must be deleted. I have removed them from all articles, etc. --Mrlopez2681 05:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I'm confused. Images published before 1923 can't be copyright protected in the US. What is the basis of saying these are still protected? Dragons flight 05:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Williams

Personally, I thought that the keep arguments were weak and didn't thoroughly discredit my NOT#NEWS and NOT#MEMORIAL arguments (they were all "She meets WP:V!! Notable!!"), but hey, that's just me. hbdragon88 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recon (haircut)

Thanks for your message. What on earth makes you think I'd re-speedy it because CSD has been declined? I have no history of doing this and have never expressed any intention of doing so. --ROGER ^TALK 20:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my standard msg when i remove a speedy and the editor is someone I haven't interacted with personally. I'm sorry if it wasn't appropriate in this case. I drafted it after some unfortunate instances where people did replace the speedy tags. There are so many editors, and it is hard to know in advance what someone would consider appropriate. I thank you for your note. I am responding here in accord with the suggestion on your talk page that you prefer to keep discussions together. DES ^(talk) 22:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. --ROGER ^TALK 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ED ad DRV

I think that, if I wanted, I could write a sourced article about ED. I think most of its mentions are reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Howeltead (talk • contribs) 11:03, 24 July 2007

Then show me some specific citations of coverage that is both in-depth and by reliable sources. I haven't seen it yet. DES ^(talk) 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Marie Williams

I dont think "historic notability" is a judgment call, especially when the event occurred almost ten years ago. I looked through google news archives and I couldn't even find a story from this millennium. While its a sad story, I dont think there is historic notability to this disappearance. (AFD LINK) Corpx 14:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that notability in general is a judgment call, if there is any basis, and if WP:V is fulfilled. I also think that I accurately reflected the consensus on that AfD, and that there was not the kind of gross policy violation that would justify a closer in overriding the consensus. If you disagree you are free to take the matter to Deletion Review or to start a new AfD -- i won't be offended in either case. I don't think Wikipedia would crumble without this article, but I see no valid reason not to have it either. I am aware that some disagree on principle in this sort of issue, but I don't believe their views are justified. However i honestly tried to asses the AfD, not to impose my own views. Do you think that I misread the consensus of those who actually commented in the AfD? How so, if so? DES ^(talk) 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I should add that I have come to distrust the google news archive as a proof of absence of coverage. It often seems not to include stories by significant news sources that can be found via regular google web searches if the stories are more than a few weeks old. In other cases storiese on the archive sites of significant news sources seem not to be found in regualr google web searches either -- perhaps they have disabled google spidering, as any site can do in the robots.txt file. So while google and google news can be excelant ways to find sources, i don't consider the lack of useful hits on google news persuasive of total absence of coverage. DES ^(talk) 15:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is definitely established and its verified, but I didn't think historic notability was established in this case. I'm opposed to this, because this basically gives credence to making an article here every time a kid disappears. Corpx 15:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can reply here, as I have it on my watchlist

I don't see "historic notability" as a separate category. Soemthing is either notable, or it isn't, whether "historic" or not. WP:N seems to take the same approach: "Conversely, if long-term coverage has been sufficiently demonstrated, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest." Inm any case, your current arguments would be better suited to a new AfD. You haven't answered: Do you think that I misread the consensus on the AfD? I do think that thsoe closer's role should be to determine and declare the consensus of the discussion, even if he persoanlly disagrees with it. DES ^(talk) 15:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should've over-ridden the consensus. WP:N is a guideline, while WP:NOT is policy, so I think WP:NOT trumps it in case of any gray areas. I'll post at WP:N talk page and see what they think. Corpx 15:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally override consensus when closing an AfD unless there is a truuly blatent violation of policy. Nore do i think that any closer ought to do so. Since there is no question that an article aboiut this would be appropriate if it is sufficiently notable, whether that bar is met is IMO a judgement call, and exactly the sort of issue on which the closer should never override the AfD consensus. IMO your proper avenue, if you disagree with the keep decision, is a new afd, where you can present your arguments and cite WP:NOT. DES ^(talk) 15:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting Scholar

Just a question: Why would I consider re-tagging the above article when someone has removed the speedy and given their rationale? I'm somewhat insulted by that message {just joking) but I have a thick skin. Happy editing!--Stormbay 23:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More seriously; the message is pretty good. You will receive some reaction at times, however, and that goes with the territory. I have been editing a lot lately and must confess that I probably tagged the above knowing that it didn't fit. My goal is to make a small dint in the large volume of non notable articles that seem to be sailing through untouched. I am happy to see editors such as yourself are catching the ones that are not tagged properly. I, in turn, will be more diligent in my choice of tags. --Stormbay 00:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of reported insurgent fatalitiy figures in Iraq

That should be List of reported insurgent fatalities in Iraq, no?

(Good analysis of the discussion, by the way.)

--ROGER ^TALK 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It isn't a list of fatalities, it is list of fataliy fougures, or fatality counts if you prefer. A "List of fatalities" would properly be a list of individuals killed, which is precisely what this is not. I did the move s an editorial action, suggested but not mandated by the AfD, and as long as I was goign to do it, i er figured thst we should have as correct a title as possible. DES ^(talk) 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's currently a huge typo in it. For the rest, "fatalities" is a noun not an adjective [3]. --ROGER ^TALK 01:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct about the typo -- oops. As for fatality being a noun, of course it is. Sequences of nouns ar often used as modifiers. Perhaps the classic example is "Dog house" menaing a house belonging to a dog. "Casualty " is a noun also, but "Casualty figures" or "casualty couts" is a comonly used phrase is such circumstances, as as "body count" -- "body" is certianly a nonn in this context. Any further commetns before I fix the typo? DES ^(talk) 01:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AKA compound nouns. I think it's clunky, verbose and adds nothing to precision but as my view isn't going to change the outcome one iota, do what you will. --ROGER ^TALK 01:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the answer is to recast it to List of insurgent fatality reports in Iraq, which is even shorter and gets rid of the long string of nouns (which is the root cause of the clunkiness). --ROGER ^TALK 01:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. Thanks, i'll do it. Note that what you say does have an effect on me. DES ^(talk) 01:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! --ROGER ^TALK 02:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

bWitty

Hello, Phil Sandifer, userfy the bwitty article after the discussion in the deletion review. I have two problems that you might be able to help me with: 1. How do I access the article? 2. Can you help me make it better?

You just seem to have lots of good intention in the deletion review. MyWiseData ^(talk) 05:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented (I don't know if you watch my user page)MyWiseData ^(talk) 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hangon on Pi (language)

I must say that deleting a page that has a {{hangon}} tag minutes after the tag was added is rather impolite. --Fasten 16:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turtle Mountain (company)

I would like someone to look at this article and give me an opinion on it in terms of whether it is notable and, if so, should some of the content be edited. (In my mind, it leans heavily toward an ad). There is some discussion on the initial editors talk page, as well. Thanks in advance for looking or passing it on to someone who will action it in some way. (perhaps remove the tag). I will watch. --Stormbay 21:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is weak, but I thinmk it is notable. The tone needs work. have removed some of the more baltently advertising aspects. DES ^(talk) 21:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt input. --Stormbay 21:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging of The Tribe of Judah Band

Thank you for your comment. It's your perogative what you do with the article, though I plan to put it up at WP:AfD now. The claims of meeting WP:NOTE are entirely worthless, of course; a Google search for The Tribe of Judah Band gives exactly zero hits, and the page on the "Grammy winning producer" makes no reference to the band. I realize what A7 is about, I realize that 9/10ths of the Speedy noms I see are for A7, and frankly, if we took the unsubstantiated and unsourced claims of every single band or aspiring rapper who created a page about themselves on Wikipedia at face value, WP:AfD would quintuple in size overnight.

In my opinion, this is precisely sort of thing that WP:IAR was created for. An obviously trashcan-bound article that would have taken one Google search, 10 seconds and 2 people to dispose of will now take several days and a dozen people. Don't forget, our mission is to cut the crap and create a world-class Encyclopedia, not act like Public Defenders pursuing some mass-exercise in bureaucratic process. Giving this moribund article it's "day in court" serves only to disrupt the time of legitimate editors that could have otherwise been improving the Project in other ways. That said, it's merely one man's interpretation. I appreciate your dedication and again thank you for taking the time to explain your decision to me on my talk page. Good day. Bullzeye^{(Complaint Dept./Brilliant Acts)} 06:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Articles

The main reason I call the Ward Churchill coatrack an attack article is that I have read the user pages of those who attack him. They have an agenda that that is disruptive and unyielding. As I said earlier I don't really care if it is deleted merged or kept. I am just an editor who is having fun . I refuse to edit war but I may wind up taking the matter all the way to arbitration if and when the edit warring starts up again. I appreciate your input but I think that article is an attack article and will be viewed as such by the arbitration committee if it ever gets that far. Brutal reduction is another option but ...... Albion moonlight 07:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be that some, perhaps even most, of the editors who have worked on this article have an agenda that is hostile to Church hill. Similarly, it is often the case that most of those who edit on various controversial articles have a strong PoV. That doesn't make the articles PoV, nor does it make the Churchill article an attack article. Whether an article is PoV is to be judged by its content, regardless of the motives of the editors involved, IMO. Similarly, if an article is in fact well-cited, documenting notable events in an accurate fashion, and if it is as well-balanced as possible given the topic, then it is IMO not an attack article.

You may be right about the ArbCom's take on this -- the current arbcom has made some IMO badly wrong decisions. I hope that you are wrong. If the ArbCom does order this censored, I will have to re-think my participation here. DES ^(talk) 13:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC

I sincerely hope that it doesn't have to go to arbitration or even mediation for that matter. How do you feel about merging it back into the Ward Churchill article. ? Albion moonlight 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against it, I feel there is too much there toi fit well into teh main articel, and trimming down to make it fit would cut out too many significant details. But if the consensus is to do that, so be it. DES ^(talk) 03:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia community → English Wikipedia

Hi. I went to the Wikipedia Community talkpage, and User:Mr.Guru said that posting because I was asked is meatpuppetry. I do not understand how this is meatpuppetry; I thought it was when two wikipedians are friends using the same computer while one edits productively and the other vandalises, and they encourage each other to continue what they are doing. You have said that this was an attempted intimidation, but I still did not post there because nobody else except you and the other user really got into that conversation. I do not fully agree that this is canvassing; if it was, edits like wikiproject spamlist (eg. signpost) would be canvassing. So, since the RfD is now closed, I have almost nowhere else to post this except here. I do indeed support an un-merge, unless the size of the section in the English Wikipedia article is at least 90% as large as the former article. Again, as the disscussion on the talkpage has said, large articles like this one should not be merged. One major problem I've noticed about voting systems on wikipedia like this one is that, while what the majority says affect the outcome and the way they are closed, the suggestions (eg. un-merge, move, remove from several) are rarely taken seriously. The closing of the debate does not usually care about what the editors suggest, or even what they say; it only cares about what most people are leaning towards so they can use that leanage to close the debate and get it over with! I mean, so the closer(s) do not usually have time to read all the comments and suggestions, nor integrate them into the outcome or solution of the debate, but all those editors who have painstakingly posted long comments, possible solutions, and other suggestions, should not merely be ignored!I mean, unless if like 50% of all the voters say something like "un-merge" and do not say so much in the way of 'keep' or 'delete' or 'support' or 'oppose', and do not become accused of sockpuppetry by doing so, it'd be very unlikely that all of those suggestions which took a total of, say, many hours to post, are even going to affect the final decision. As the discussion has commented, DRV is not for un-merging. Well, perhaps this is also a result of this problem, or maybe someone should suggest a merging review or protection review or moving review or sysopping review or blocking review ... ... which could take many days, if anyone reads the proposals. Or, is there somewhere else where editors can settle for consensus for thing like this? It'd be unlikely for a un-merging to be done and be uncontroversial without days of discussions and consensus-settling, and we probably don't even have a proper place to discuss this so that more people could get involved. I'm also surprised that this merging happened so quickly, like in a matter of hours, that most people didn't even have time to react, and if they did react on the RfD, the most obvious place to react, their comments would likely still not be used to decide the final decision. I'm still not yet sure whether or not I'm even allowed to discuss this on the talkpage, even though I have nowhere else that I can discuss this that I'm aware of. Thus, I can not yet seem to be able to help settle for a consensus on this. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Things Going About

The reason User:LessHeard vanU indef blocked User:Iupuicees is because earlier today another user User:Cees iupui was posting copyvios of the same site. As for the Lilly Project itself, I could have sworn I saw the copyvio'd text, but that seems to be non-existent so that's a mistake on my part there. Sorry for that and hope this hasn't created a horrible amount of confusion. -WarthogDemon 05:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noticed that LessHeard has put a block notice on the other user's page yet didn't block him, but I'm a tad confused on what's going on there. -WarthogDemon 05:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite odd. DES ^(talk) 05:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block log says: 16:05, 27 July 2007 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Iupuicees (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Copyright infringement) (Unblock)

User:Cees iupui has a block tag but no entries in the block log. DES ^(talk) 05:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Plus, LessHeard told me we should just wait and see what happens, yet the next edit he puts the message there. Not sure why he did and it must've slipped my mind about asking him. At any rate, there is of course no harm now in assuming good faith . . . Iupui, looking at the history, made an unblock request which he later removed before it got reviewed. Should it be reverted back to the request, and reviewed by a third admin? -WarthogDemon 05:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. :) -WarthogDemon 16:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re User:Iupuicees indef block

Thanks for your message at my talkpage. I would be pleased to unblock this user once you have looked over Cees iupui (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to have both a similar username, similar subject matters, and similar copyvio issues. If you are happy that Iupuicees and Cees iupui are not the same person, or that they are the same and making the same mistake, then I will unblock. Being Saturday I may not be around too much, so you may wish to unblock then please do. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 08:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

er... The usernames are very similar, aren't they? (cough) Good catch, and I've undone the block notice with a message on the page and in the summary. I think that they are the same people (logged off and forgot password?) but if they are making innocent mistakes then it shouldn't matter. If you do decide to unblock we can always ask Iupuicees if they are Cees iupui and if they want the account deleted/merged. LessHeard vanU 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your suggestions. I would comment that I have already removed (per above) the template from Cees iupui, since it was my bad to have placed it there in the first place. LessHeard vanU 14:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I linked. If the editor takes you up on your offer of mentorship and you want a second opinion on anything, or any other matter, feel free to contact me. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To give you the heads up DESiegel, the user has replied here User talk:Iupuicees. :) -WarthogDemon 21:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Things look good. Again, I apologize for the accidental mistag. I always do check each one even if its the same site. I confused myself by going too fast. :p -WarthogDemon 18:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KBRI

Hi there. You reverted my speedy delete taggings for KBRI and KJRI. I placed them there (although I now thing perhaps a PROD would have been better) because they are Indonesian abbreviations for English words. If these pages stand, logically there should be pages for all languages' words for Embassy and Consulate. I have added these two abbreviations to List of Indonesian acronyms and abbreviations. Would it be rude (to you or the original author) if I tagged them for deletion again? Regards. Davidelit 17:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the swift reply. I was a bit hasty on the speedy delete tag on Twinkle. Regards. Davidelit 17:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Now I know. Good work. Davidelit 17:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List Deletion

Thanks for your comment. I really struggled with the AfD and evidently many others did too because it was one of two left over to be processed. Some of these are very easy, others are tough. Anyway I appreciate your comments and will keep them in mind. JodyB_{yak, yak, yak} 18:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of tag on Template HRM

I could be wrong, but that isn't a Template: it is an article using the name Template, that is a redirect to something seemingly unrelated. Pharmboy 01:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

DESiegel, thank you for your helpful edits on the Leo Van Dolson article. They were much appreciated, and I'm happy to see another Wikipedian helping out just to help out. Cheers. Psychophant 14:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI dispute

Hi DES, I have now outlined my case at WP:COIN for User:MyWiseData having a conflict of interest. TreveX^talk 17:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.hack//G.U. (video game series)

Resolved

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

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

Relationships Australia

The government of Australia, like that of most countries, funds literally thousands of groups like this one: there is nothing in the article that asserts that this group is unlike those thousands of others. It doesn't claim to be the biggest (we have no idea whether it's just a few people or a cast of thousands), that it helps a few people or thousands, that anyone notable is associated with it, e.g., is some royal personage its patron. Simply put, there's no assertion there. Read it again to see if there's some claim to fame I missed. If you'd like to restore it, please prod it because I think you'll even agree that notability is at least an issue. Carlossuarez46 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to your restoring the article and tagging (even not prod) for notability. I am dubious about 60 years=notable, but many - most - non-profits are A7's (every town's scouting troup, sewing circle, debating society, dog show, legal aid, free clinic, PTA, etc. are non-profits, as area all those nice people at airports telling you about God, politics, or which sights to see). :-) Carlossuarez46 20:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I try not to be too quick on the finger, but I usually do not delve into the sources to try to find additional facts that aren't asserted in the articles. I commend you for doing so but I don't think it's required. Carlossuarez46 20:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, that reminds me of a time when I had a hunch that some boxer bio marked for speedy was more than just a run-of-the-mill boxer and found that he actually was on the US olympic team! Carlossuarez46 20:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hatfield House

What do you think of that one? Carlossuarez46 20:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on the basis of the Titanic linkage. Lots of the articles that have hung around in the pool for a while seem too close to call to me, but I don't feel strongly enough to either delete them or remove the speedy tag. Carlossuarez46 20:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on this article, but it is nothing more than spam for a non notable business with spurious claims to notability, backed up by a paid for advert. As for the celebrity regulars, go see if Google has heard of them. Nuttah68 21:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you contested and tagged the article I'll give it a few days to see if anyone can improve ir before taking it up the chain. Out of interest, why do you think bars are exempt from A7 non notable businesses? Nuttah68 21:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, even if I still don't understand your logic. If the bar is notable its not an A7 anyway, if it isn't notable the I don't see how the fact that it is a physical place (as are newspaper stands, wal marts, discount stores, gas stations) changes its notability. Nuttah68 21:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo

There seems to be a typo here. However, I don't want to change anything you have written. Who knows, maybe you know something I don't ;) the_undertow ^talk 04:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typo fixed, thanks. DES ^(talk) 04:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Flyaow

You just delted Flyaow as spam. I don't think this was blatent advertising, in fact I was editing to remove the speedy tag when you delted. Please reconsider this deletion. This looked like a fairly factual description of an arguably notabel web site to me. DES ^(talk) 16:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it doesn't appear to meet the WP:WEB criteria. If you feel it does and can provide some corroboration, let's restore it and update it appropriately. Good articles deserve space on the project, no argument here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Giles peters

You deleted this under WP:CSD#A7. I think there were claims of notability present, such as "the largest diabetic gift service in the U.K.", and "has received mass media coverage for his business". Please consider undelting and, if you still think this doesn't belong on Wikipedia, letting it go to AfD. DES ^(talk) 16:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, restored and initiated AfD. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Score One for the Little Guy

I still think it merits a speedy, as the assertion of notability is tenuous at best. But I went ahead and put it up for AfD. Realkyhick 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this guy was a repeat offender. The AfD closed quickly with a speedy delete and salt, plus blocking the author. Wow, that was fast. Realkyhick 21:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Name

Thank you very much for all the details. We can get started one by one.

1) User name: If I choose the user name SeeEarth, would there be any violation? Moreover, can i register it with the same email address that I used for the previous registration? Or Would it conflict?

Thank you once agian.

New Account

Hi. I have created the account SeeEarth. We can use it to for discussion from now on. I placed the draft of my article on my usertalk on this id. Could you please check it.

Thanks