User talk:Coredesat/Archive 9

help with deletions

To maintain consistancy with your descition to delete the Gurevich system entry, can you please tell me how to propose the following pages for deletion that either relied on that article, or are similar to that article?:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circus_skills
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hovey_Burgess_pedagogie_%28Circus%29
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simply_Circus_pedagogie_%28Circus%29

SimplyCircus 13:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

My frustration here is that as an expert in the circus industry I know the value of that article. I know that the article that was deleted was one of the most importiant documents on the web with reguards to how circus arts are classified, yet other than myself, all of those involved in the deletion of that article have no edits in any of the circus constilation that I could find, let alone have the background in circus to know or understand the value of that content. No one even bothered to answer the reasoning I posted for keeping the article (which included a journal citation in peer reviewed journal!)

When you get right down to it, any pedagogie is little more than an ordered list of skills. The knowladge contained in how that list is ordered is huge. How does one set of circus skills relate to another? By comparing and contrasting how a given school looks at circus arts you gain an understanding of what they teach, when they teach it, and more importiantly, why they do it the way they do. And no school of circus arts is larger than those based on the Gurevich system. Instead you get "WP:NOT" and "a mere list of Soviet Circus tricks".

As an expert in the field (and feel free to google Simply Circus and Steven Santos (my real name), read some of the books and articles I have written on circus, or otherwise satisfy yourself that I am an expert in the field), I am discusted here. What was deleted was equivelent to deleting an entry on Salvador Dalí's Woman at the Window. If your not an art buff, its just a lame painting of a woman standing at a window and clearly doesn't merit its own entry - WP:NOT.

SimplyCircus 03:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

One More Request About Nezdar

I promise I will NEVER publish an attack page on Wikipedia again, and I apologize for my mistake. However...my friends and I were thinking it would be fun to make a webpage (myspace) for Nezdar...I really need your co-operation in undeleting my page for literally 5 minutes so I can copy and paste it, and then deleting it completely. If you can't...don't worry.

Nezdar 19:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nezdar's Email

Please email: matthewgorelik@gmail.com.

Thank you so much once again :)

Nezdar 22:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Blade Dictionary

I deleted what must have been a recreated nonsense version of this article, realised that I hadn't checked the history and, when I did so, saw that the previous version was a completely different article with an AfD tag. I failed to pick up your deletion of that, and assumed the AfD version had been vandalised to the nonsense I deleted. I therefore restored what I thought was an ongoing AfD. apologies for my error, jimfbleak 11:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

user page deletion

I don't appreciate you deleting my page without disputing it correctly and giving me time to conform--er, change it to abide by consensorship--er, "consensus". Restore the page so I can remove the "soapbox" info and leave the other valid things I was working on (my "todo" list that I don't feel like having to recreate all over again). -Eep² 02:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Restore the FULL version so I may move the commentary off of Wikipedia (since I can't view what was on it before you deleted the page). -Eep² 03:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of the 24 Hour Knowledge Factory article

I am the creator of the 24-Hour Knowledge Factory page, one listed as spam by you. I implore you to please check the Social Science Research Network for this global work paradigm and read over some of the many papers that deal with this new framework. Many companies including IBM have adopted and are in the trial stages of testing the efficacy of this paradigm. A link to one of the most recent research grants given to [Dr. Amar Gupta], the creator of this paradigm, is here:

http://www.eller.arizona.edu/news/2007/01/09_IBM_honors_MIS_and_Entrepreneurship_professor_Amar_Gupta.aspx

I understand that your admin duties most likely stipulate that you will make a delete/do not delete decision based upon the comments made by others, however this article is definitely not spam. Please check some of the research before deleting others' work. I would appreciate your help in retrieving all the information that was written on that page. If you have access to it, I would appreciate it if you would please place it back in its original form and then contact me with any edits that you think would make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yuu.david (talk • contribs) 20:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 24-Hour Knowledge Factory. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Yuu.david 21:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that it was already deleted, but being a novice, I did not create a back-up of the page, and would enjoy to have my information returned. Additionally, I do not understand where the contention of 'unreliable sources' comes from, as 100% of the work comes from academic papers published by scientists. What is unreliable? Have you read any of the papers and/or sources? If these are unreliable, what is reliable? They are posted on SSRN, one of the world's leading sources of academic papers. And, the information provided in the link above is documented by a well respected news source. What is unreliable? --Yuu.david 21:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I most definitely was the creator of the content. The only other user who may have added to the article was user Jeremykrey. The sources are reliable, I still don't understand your contention that they aren't! --Yuu.david 21:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking again that I was the author. I already attempted to post on deletion review, and just wanted to keep everytone updated on the regular review page as well. --Yuu.david 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

As my deletion review does not seem to be going in my favor, could you please provide me with the text of the article that I wrote? I didn't make a back-up, but would be able to use this in the future. --Yuu.david 15:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Smart Wrestling Fan

Smart Wrestling Fan has been recreated after a successfull AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smart Wrestling Fan you closed. Someone has already marked it for speedy deletion, but thought you should know too. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 05:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Another admin deleted it already - thanks anyway. Ruhrfisch 13:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

reinstating fring page

An editor has asked for a deletion review of fring. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I submitted for the deletion review again - you said you couldn't find it last time and I also didn't hear back from you so here is the external link to help find the request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_13 Thanks, Seital 11:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 14th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 20	14 May 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator status restored to five accounts after emergency desysopping	User committed identities provide protection against account hijacking
Academic journals multiply their analyses of Wikipedia	WikiWorld comic: "Ubbi dubbi"
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Jackson

Hello, maybe you can shed some light on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtney Jackson that seems already have to be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pumkin where it was co-nominated. --Tikiwont 13:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

?

hdu figure i'm a sock puppetLadySovereignFan 10:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Graduation

Congratulations, Coredesat! Enjoy your holiday too :) Kla'quot 07:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

requesting Coredesat help reinstating page please

hello - I requested a deletion review for this page over a month ago and several times since - through the deletion review function and also you as the administrator who deleted it. I am trying to re-instate the page that was deleted for 'blatant advertising' which is questionable considering it was the objective description of a commercial service (just like Nokia). Having said that, the individual who wrote it is no longer involved and I would like to re-write it but can't until the page is made available again. I would appreciate support in making this page available again so I can post a definition of fring. This is taking a long time so I really appreciate your help - thank you in advance. --Seital 11:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Weirdness with autoblock of User:66.230.200.144

I saw your note on the user talk page User talk:66.230.200.144. Just thought I'd note that I was one of the people affected by the autoblock, which appeared to hit people who aren't at the IP address originally blocked. For example, the IP where I am right now is 137.229.156.184, but the autoblock was for 66.230.200.144. Perhaps you already know this, but just in case I wanted to point it out -- perhaps to be pointed out to whoever is working on this issue. Thanks. --Yksin 22:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

==Regarding 24 Hour knowledge Factory==

Could you please send me the old 24 hour knowledge factory article ASAP? I need the information, as I did not save it, and plan to use it in the future. Thank you. --Yuu.david 03:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabian (wrestler)

I just wanted to clarify, if it's a tie of 3 votes each, why didn't it go to no-consensus? The external links covered the citation and his honours gave him notability. Govvy 09:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 21st, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 21	21 May 2007	About the Signpost

Corporate editing lands in Dutch media	Spoiler warnings may be tweaked
WikiWorld comic: "Disruptive technology"	News and notes: LGBT project mention, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Gabe-Shi-Win-Gi-Ji-Kens

I see that you deleted Gabe-Shi-Win-Gi-Ji-Kens. Could you restore the article and add this redirect in it place? #REDIRECT [[Scouting_in_Michigan#Chief_Okemos_Council]] {{Scouting redirect from merge}}

It would help with the historical record.

Thanks. evrik ^(talk) 15:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• thanks for adding the redirect. ANy way I can get you can restore the deleted article ands then slap the redirect on it so we can see what the article was before it was deleted? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 13:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Predictions for Harry Potter 7

I wasn't crystal balling. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dracula101 (talk • contribs)

Hickok882 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)add new topic

i think wiki should have some information about chinese-ameircans in WWII, it is a forgoten history. and.. i have some research paper (information surprised me as well) about it... so i hope wiki could add it.. (but i dont really no how .. mmm) thanks a lot!

List of jazz clubs

Please restore the most recent version of the list of jazz clubs to my workspace. It has unique content that justified its existence, and I will take it to review. Thanks. - Freechild 22:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

assistance please

An editor has asked for a deletion review of fring. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seital 09:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

assistance please

I just informed you of another deletion review request for the fring page - for some reason I can't track any progress on this deletion review so am requesting your assistance. I realise you're away on vacation - so I appreciate your assistance when you can. I didn't place the original contribution that was deleted - I'd like to create a new one. thanks --Seital 09:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

24-Hour Knowledge Factory

I have configured the email address. Please send the article at your earliest convenience. Thank you. --Yuu.david 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sun Bear

See WP:BIRD for the logic. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say Sun Bear falls under WP:BIRD, only that the logic for using capitals is there. The logic still holds regardless. See WP:PRIM and WP:CETA for other examples of where this is used for mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 28th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 22	28 May 2007	About the Signpost

Controversy over biographies compounded when leading participant blocked	Norwegian Wikipedian, journalist dies at 59
WikiWorld comic: "Five-second rule"	News and notes: Wikipedian dies, Alexa rank, Jimbo/Colbert, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Jehning Family Lock Museum

Hi, Credesat... I see you deleted Jehning Family Lock Museum (speedy - deleted? I couldn't find the discussion, but I didn't look hard) as advertising. Actually, it isn't; I put the page up because though it's only small it is close to being unique, and I have absolutely no connection with the museum apart from liking to look in its windows when I pass that way. Any objection to my restoring the page? seglea 18:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Rick Achberger's Deletion

I don't think he should have been deleted off of Wikipedia. He may seem like an "attention seeking" fan, but he has been notably mentioned numerous times in WWE magazines so he is an acknowledged person by the company itself. He has been on other shows and he is a person at interest. If he gets deleted we should just delete half of wikipedia, some people only did so little, they may be of interest but they didn't do enough to have information put out on them. This is the case he has and it's pointless deleting it.

Snerkie 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

re user page UnitedPakistan

I merely mentioned the issue in the right place, but he started attacking me him just because I'm an Indian, at which point I politely defended myself but he wouldn't let it pass. But I was never rude or uncivil, just defending myself for the issue was about him, yet he made it look I was the erring part. However, I've learnt my lesson and the next time someone does start attacking me I will not reply to such baiting. Tx Idleguy 11:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On BJAODN

I don't understand why you believe that BJAODN pages necessarily violate the GFDL. If Jeffrey O Gustafson's intentions were pure, he would have done the work to make the pages compliant with *his interpretation* of the GFDL by merging edit histories, or selectively deleted content that could not be properly sourced. Instead he unilaterally deleted the pages and wheel-warred to protect his action. --The Cunctator 22:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 4th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 23	4 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Sockpuppeting administrator desysopped, banned	Admin restored after desysopping; dispute centers on suitability of certain biographies
Controversial RFA suspended, results pending	Dutch government provides freely licensed photos
WikiWorld comic: "John Hodgman"	News and notes: Another Wikipedian dies, brand survey, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

ah life

Does this[1] mean I don't have to search for the correct vandal warning template?[2] KP Botany 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, this will be bad for my ego in the long run that you could block him faster than I could warn him. KP Botany 00:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Good one

Nicely done. You did the right thing, so now you get to prepare for several hundred people complaining at you about it. :) Friday (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 02:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Stokke

May I ask how you came to the conclusion that inclusion of reliably sourced material could ever be defamatory? I can understand saying this is the sort of material that we don't want in Wikipedia but it is inaccurate and unhelpful to call the material in question defamatory. JoshuaZ 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm much happier with your clarified close if I understand it correctly. JoshuaZ 02:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that you apparently ignored a whole bunch of arguments to reach the decision, not to mention misrepresented discussion at the talk page of the article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV is thataway. I stand behind my decision, I looked at both sides and tried to see which side was stronger. I expected this would happen no matter what decision I made. --Coredesat 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Will probably be heading there by someone, if not me. I'm just not sure how you could possibly consider the delete side stronger - every argument they made was throughly debunked. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Coredesat stepped up and made a difficult decision on this article. As he suggests, had he gone the other way people surely would have posted here saying "I'm just not sure how you could possibly consider the keep side stronger." The fact is there were reasonable arguments both for keep and for delete. These arguments were only "thoroughly debunked" if you were of the opposing position. I hope editors don't give Coredesat too much slack for closing out this highly contentious AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it comes down to two things - one side argued in policy, the other not so much. Did the article meet every relevant policy? Yes, this isn't in question, and those saying otherwise should have been weighted properly. Once you take those into effect, what's left? "We shouldn't have this article." "WP:DIGNITY" (a contentious essay). "Delete please...". I mean, I'd like to see one policy-guided comment that made any sense toward deletion that wasn't addressed at some point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it safe to assume I won't be getting a response to this, Coredesat? No wrong answer here, but it'll definitely help me consider whether DRV is the route to go here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I added clarification to the AFD close statement, but I didn't change the close. DRV away if you want. --Coredesat 03:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, my curiousity comes from what arguments you believed were stronger. Your expanded statement didn't exactly address that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

This is now at DRV. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Stokke AFD closure

Well done on stepping forward to close an AFD that will soon enough result in drama. Enjoy this set of balls — and remember, only a few people are willing to subject themselves to such scrutiny. (messedrocker • talk) 02:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree; it needed to be deleted... but I also agree with some of the sentiments expressed on the AfD, that she could exist as a locked redirect to Invasion of privacy or something similar. Is there a place where that might be discussed? Fishal 18:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong decision

I do not see how the Alison Stokke AfD can possibly have merited closure as anything other than No consensus. Just because you disagreed with the arguments of the Keep voters does not give you the right to ignore them. I would list it on DRV, but that would probably constitute flogging a dead horse under the circumstances. Nonetheless, you were very, very wrong. Walton^Assistance! 19:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is, you seem to be suggesting that anyone can prevent any deletion, simply by being loud about it. This is why we look beyond simple vote-counting. Friday (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

We (the Keep !voters) weren't just "being loud about it", we were presenting coherent arguments, made in good faith and with extensive reference to Wikipedia policy. I therefore resent Friday's allegations above. Walton^Assistance! 19:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff

Hi, over the past fifteen minutes or so I've been trying to post the following comment on the administrators' noticeboard:

: As the recipient of the comment, which was very much out of character for Jeff, I suggest that bringing it to this forum was mistaken. This isn't the way to do things. Let's just forget it. Jeff and I are both bigger than some petty squabble on the internet. Could somebody close this idiotic section, please?

It looks to me like you said in your last comment that you blocked Jeff for a week. Please say this isn't so. If you did, please unblock him at once. --Tony Sidaway 02:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Gil Noble

I agree, having looked at the article since I flagged it, it would appear that the author has moved the article sufficiently far away from the originally copywritten material for it not to be an issue. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kelsey Smith

Hi. I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and not sure of how many things work. I have two questions about the Kelsey Smith article and the discussion of its deletion. (1) Who exactly decides that the discussion for deletion concluded with a "no consensus"? I am assuming you, as your name posted the conclusion. But, I could be wrong -- I am not sure how that process works exactly. (2) How exactly did you (or the other responsible individual) arrive at that conclusion? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 04:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for your prompt reply. I am still confused. What exactly does "consensus" mean? A majority? More than 50%? More than 2/3? More than 3/4? In other words, is there any numerical equivalent or benchmark at which the tally of votes changes from "no consensus" to "consensus"? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 04:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Signpost updated for June 11th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 24	11 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Privacy report lists Wikipedia among best sites, but needing improvement	Board candidacies open, elections planned
WikiWorld comic: "Why did Mike the Headless Chicken cross the road?"	News and notes: Ontario error, no consensus RFA, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 02:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Tobias Conradi

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs) the content you removed from his user page was subject adding such grievances is subject to 1 hour block, as per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi Gnangarra 08:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article Albanophobia

I am very surprised by the fact that Wikipedia is accepting deletion of articles like Albanophobia. The deletion vote was dominated by those who are albanophobists. I do totally disagree with the deletion as I find it very politically motivated and I ask you to restore the article with all references. Deletion of this article is abuse of Wikipedia. --Noah30 21:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of Albanophobia. Albania and Serbia are in the same region. Albanophobia was deleted and Serbophobia kept. I just wonder why and try to give an explanation which is: Politically motivated voting. Don't know where you are from but this is how it works when it comes to Balkans articles. I dislike this very much but little can I do and as a result of this Wikipedia is polluted with propaganda (mainly Serbian). Sad but true. Good night --Noah30 22:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

DRV on User:Tobias Conradi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Tobias Conradi. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. CBD 11:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Negligence ??

Regarding the sentence: The design and construction of New Orleans' flood protection is, by congressional mandate, the sole responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers in the Flood Protection Act of 1965.

You say: The statement is POV because it assumes negligence on the part of the Army Corps of Engineers without providing any evidence to that effect. --Coredesat 20:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me why my inserted statement that is backed up with sources "assumes negligence?"

HoppinHill HoppinHill

Policies

You say: "I mentioned the policies you violated or are close to violating: WP:NPOV and WP:3RR. Please take a look at those, and if you post replies to me, post them on my user talk page and not my user page, or they will be rolled back. --Coredesat 18:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)"

I have read the rules about NPOV. I don't understand how posting this sentence violates NPOV.

"The design and construction of New Orleans' flood protection is, by congressional mandate, the sole responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers in the Flood Protection Act of 1965."

Please help me. In the name of disinterested inquiry, I want to work within the rules. Best, HoppinHill 68.11.53.13 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Please bring back the FRING page!

Hello i noticed you where one of the members who deleted the fring page. I would like to point out that although this may have been advertising it is wrong to delete this page if you do not delete similar pages like Truphone or Nokia what is the difference, i understand that advertising is against wiki rules and agree 100% with the deletion, HOWEVER, please also delete all the other pages listed on this page or you may bring serious disrepute to the wiki website for being bias. Pages like Skype etc etc also fall into this category. The list is endless. Even if i am wrong and it is not Bias it still brings a very poor reflection on wikipedia, i am sure the people who put up the page either made a mistake or did it on purpose, whatever the case it should be edited and corrected but not deleted. Fring is busy changing the world as we know it and this needs to be on wiki the same as Skype and Nokia etc.

Anyway its just a thought, please respond accordingly and do not think i am trying to cause an issue, i just feel we need to keep the good name of wiki high and not allow any form a bias or advertising to enter the system.

regards

Wiki fan who has doubts..

Goplett 20:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow thanx for the speedy reply. Could you please let me know what you mean by reliable source. If you link back to the actual company then its called advertising, i do not work at fring! where must someone get reliable info on something if you can't use the actual info, linking to someone who has info on a system can not be clearly said to be reliable, however linking to the actual people who know the system inside out is reliable. Please advise me how to help make a proper article that wont be deleted in 2seconds. I have reliable sources but not published. and if i publish the info i have on my site, and link to that then its also not reliable. mmm, it gets more confusing as you go.

However i still support the fact, that if fring is deleted then Nokia must also go etc.. or else something is seriously wrong with this system.

Confused wiki user ;-(

Goplett 20:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanx for the help. Will take a year off to learn all the rules, maybe then i can help put up a page that doesnt get deleted. Dont wana try put up the fring page and it gets deleted, 8 attempts have been made by others my attempt must work. someone should look into the problem though, i am sure there are many good articles lost in this way. Regards s

Goplett 21:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Requesting review of Gallery of flags with stars deletion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gallery of flags with stars. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ScottMainwaring 05:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Maintenance??

You say: First of all, add new comments to the bottom of talk pages. Secondly, the comment assumes negligence because of the context of the section you keep adding it to. The levees failed, the Army Corps of Engineers are supposed to maintain them...and there's a logical conclusion that ends up being POV in the end. The article doesn't need that content anyway. --Coredesat 03:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 1. Ok, from now on I'll go to the bottom of the page. (It's nice to say please.) 2. The Army Corps is not supposed to maintain the levees. That's not true and I never said it. You are jumping to conclusions that are POV statements, that are your opinion. 3. Stating "The article doesn't need that content" is again, POV. My sentence is a fact, and I am still awaiting a reason that I cannot add it that is not POV. HoppinHill 14:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Joseph James

You closed the debate as DELETE, but the article still exists. Did you delete it and somebody undeleted after the AFD?Balloonman 20:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

actually, on closer review, it looks as if the Joseph James that was reviewed and deleted is not the stub that currently exists at said link... could you confirm that for me?Balloonman 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks... that's what I thought when I looked at the comments... but I wanted to make sure. It was a little wierd seeing a verdict to delete, but a live link.Balloonman 01:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 18th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 25	18 June 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Wikipedia critic's article merged	Board election series: Election information
Admin account apparently compromised, blocked	Controversial RfA withdrawn, bureaucrats fail to clarify consensus
WikiWorld comic: "They Might Be Giants"	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

Thanks for giving me time to "assert notability" buddy, it's obvious you don't pay attention to the news. Have a nice day. Robertojoven 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Robertojoven
Updated with 8 links. Do I need more?? Robertojoven 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)robertojoven

Eskişehir Kılıçoğlu Anadolu Lisesi

Thanks for pointing out, that schools aren't candidate for deletion under CSD A7. Can you however look over the article and opine whether it should be prodded/AFD'ed for "not establishing notability through secondary sources" or if it is a satisfactory stub ? Just FYI: I only happened to come across this article and have no personal interest either way in keeping/deleting it. Regards. Abecedare 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That was quick ! Thanks for the second opinion - I didn't want to be going on a wild goose chase based on some misunderstanding of wikipedia deletion criterion. Abecedare 00:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

User Page

hey man, saw you while i was working on the Kelsey Smith article, and i look at your user page and it looks really cool. could you teach me how to make all those tables and stuff. --Ksharpe126 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Reviews

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Plastic Surgery Slumber Party. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. milk the cows (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eyelash Curlers & Butcher Knives (What's The Difference?). Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. milk the cows (Talk) 17:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Debate to delete Kelsey Smith article

Just for the record - this issue was bothering me, so I went back to the debate and actually (very quickly) counted the votes. Dismissing the one neutral vote, there were 34 Keep and 17 Delete votes. So, that is exactly a 2-to-1 ratio in favor of Keep. Thus, the percentage was 2/3 Keep (67%) and 1/3 Delete (33%). Whether or not that qualifies as "consensus," I am not sure. But I did want to present the raw data. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 23:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for getting back to me on this. (JosephASpadaro 01:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Dy-no-mite

A while back, I created a page for Dy-no-mite. I recently noticed that the article was deleted. Can you tell me where I can find more information on that? ... or where I can find the discussion/debate about its deletion? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 23:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for getting back to me on this, also. (JosephASpadaro 01:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC))