User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz/Archive 12! I'm Celestianpower. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Hello. Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down in microchips! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article

There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or add {{helpme}} to your userpage - someone will come very, very quickly to your aid. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck! —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: Speedy deletions

I'm sorry, but a speedy deletion is a speedy deletion. WP:CSD is very clear in this regard. These articles do not fit these criteria, so please try proposing it for deletion or putting it on AFD instead. Thanks and regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read the Talk pages of articles before nominating them for AfD or trying to Speedy them. The List of gay porn stars article was previously nominated for deletion and the result was "keep".—Chidom ^talk  12:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take more care in avoiding incivility or comments that may be seen as uncivil. I read the discussion page. The nomination you refer to is over a year old. The policy underlying my deletion proposal took effect only a few months ago. Even without the new policy rules, there is nothing wrong with a new deletion proposal more than a year after an earlier one. Especially when the reason is completely different. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you found my comment to appear uncivil. It was not meant to be so.—Chidom ^talk  20:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unbias

I noticed that an editor by the name of Hoary is very bais when it comes to deleting photographers from the fashion photography section. Just recently I added a photographer the shoots for Vogue Magazine and also has won very prestigious awards... all this information is verifiable, and referecnced. I am writing you because I see that you have stood upto this person, in the Luke Duval AFD section. Another, much more established photographer named Seth Sabal has been deleted by Hoary and this photographer, shoots for shot for Vogue; and won the same award as Luke Duval the photographer you protected from deletion. Can you please help me. Thank you Sarah PhotobloggerNYT (talk) 01:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of images

Please stop removing images from articles, as you did with Jenny Lynn, Raye Hollitt, Guy Lafleur, and others. Using images of book and magazine covers is acceptable under WP:Fair use. fbb_fan 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:Fair use and the policy described in the copyright tag for those images more carefully. As my edit summaries accurately quoted, "It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used directly in connection with the publication of this image." In each case you cited, the article use did not conform to this requirement. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 19:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:FU and note that it is in fact a guideline, not a policy. This is clearly stated at the top of the page. fbb_fan 01:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Please review WP:FU more carefully. The template you mention refers only to sections 1-4 of the page. Sections 5-8 are formal Wikipedia policy. They are labelled as formal policy by the template preceding section 5. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

...and I believe the section you are citing as the reason for removing images is not in the section marked as "policy".

Incidentally, since you seem to be quite a stickler for policy and such, please note the following from WP:SIG: Signatures that obscure your account name to the casual reader may be seen as disruptive. fbb_fan 23:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Noel Gallagher

Hi there! I was wondering why you made this edit. Gallagher's drug-use in his early days is pretty widely documented – he's even had a few laughs about it during interviews. And the fact that he ripped off "Get It On" is also pretty well-known, although I agree that may have been written in a slightly POV way. But do you think that we should just remove his recreational habits from the article? I wouldn't want to start an edit war, so I just thought I'd see what you think. This paragraph states that if an allegiation is notable, verifiable and important to the article, it should not be removed. And personally, I think Gallagher using drugs was one of the best things to happen to British music – without it, Oasis would have just been some shoddy garage band :) But that's just me! Well, please let me know your thoughts. Happy editing, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 14:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Under the "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced negative material" paragraph of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, statements like these are to be removed immediately if they are not properly sourced. Claims of plagiarism and illegal drug abuse are clearly "negative material." If they are well-documented, just find reliable sources and add the material back, citing those sources. Make sure that what the article says on these matters matches what the source says. No disagreement about content, just about sourcing -- statements like these now must be verified, not just verifiable. The editor formerly known as Harmonica Wolfowitz 17:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I've left a message with the editor who added all that information initially; I'm sure he'll take care of it. :) Ta, — riana_dzasta • t • c • e • ER • 23:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

Regarding your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Adi Shankara, I've forwarded the email to the PR dept giving permission for the image. ^Babub→Talk 01:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chessie Moore

Would have been easy to check that I wasn't libelling her. She freely admits to it on her (already linked) bio/FAQ on her site. So please don't pull out the WP:BLP too quickly. Cheers. MadMaxDog 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP says that if comments like that aren't sourced, delete immediately. Hard to see how I could act "too quickly". Please explain. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 19:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nah, its okay. I was mainly referring to the fact that the link I gave as a source was already on the page! Though I can understand that with such fetishes, people might be rather restrictive... MadMaxDog 07:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Request

I am not familiar with the credit card / porn star identity incident you mentioned in AnonEMouse's RFA, but I would like to take a closer look at it. Could you provide some more direct diffs related to Mouse's involvment? Dragons flight 21:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I provided extensive links and discussion on that page, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/AnonEMouse. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"a couple followup questions"

You were very civil, and raised appropriate points. I could hardly do less than respond, briefly at first, then in more detail when JoshuaZ asked. I can't wait for the questions! :-) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA Opposition ... Thanks

Thank You
 

(Open your card) → → →         

Harmonica, Hullaballoo ... (I still think it should have been Peterandthe Wolfowitz) ..., thank you for your civility and reasonableness in your opposition. I can't pretend I wouldn't have preferred you support, but if I had to have opposition, I'm glad it was as reasoned, well thought out and argued as yours. You were amazed the discussion was so civil - well, you made it civil. And for that, I thank you.

As you suspected it would, my Request for Adminship has ended, successfully. And your words there had a lot of impact on me. I would appreciate the chance to show you that you were wrong in your opposition. I expect we will continue to disagree on content issues, but that is all right - it takes views to make this a successful encyclopedia, as long as they are well intentioned and civil they will be appreciated. If there is any admin thing I can do to make your life easier, please ask, and I will do as best I can.

Otherwise I will try to start the admin thing slowly, and not delete the Main Page for at least five minutes. If I mess up, make sure to come to my talk page and give me a good yell. Email also works, and is more private, but talk page will often get a more immediate response. If even that doesn't work, I am, of course, in Category:Administrators open to recall, though I would hope you give the yell route a try first. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Design from User:Phaedriel/Rfa thanks, which amazed me when I got it. GFDL.

CalendarWatcher's reversion

Just to note, CalendarWatcher reverted you here [1]. I agree with you that the merge should be done with a little more effort put into it as to what's necessary and what's not by some users familiar with the topic. I didn't understand his reasoning that 'nothing is stopping you' while merging the article making that impossible. It just sounded abrasive. I know a little about the show myself so I could possibly step in if need be, but as you said, it shouldn't be merged yet. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 08:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I might also like to note that this editor is running on a second chance granted by an admin in which he really should be blocked right now for recent violation of the 3RR, as shown here [2]. His editing practices are not improving and you are not the only user he has shown uncivil editing habits with as shown here [3] and here [4]. Given that he should be blocked for violation of 3RR, an admin should most definitely be contacted if he engages in edit warring or violates the 3RR again. Cheers! Cheers_Dude (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Calton and sockpuppetry

If you blank content on User:Calton again, I will block you for disruptive editing. I've already blocked your IP once, so I suggest you stop. - auburnpilot talk 01:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dave Simons DRV

In relation to this edit [5], DRV is generally only for admins since they're the ones who can see the full text of the deletion pages. That being said, do you have a link for the cahce of the full text of the deleted article? I'd like to see it and offer help, if I can. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, nothing I see in the deletion policy page on deletion review backs up your claim. Any editor may participate in deletion review. Often the deleted text is not as important as the deletion discusssion which remains for all editors to see. Deletion review is a discussion about the appropriateness of deletion discussion outcomes. I have read many discussions in which normal editors participated. Second, the google cache has now disappeared. But the same content can be found here. [[6]]. Showing that the editor who created the article was actively trying to improve it. It is extremely similar to the text I posted. I do not understand why you think that text was not sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I said nothing of the sort about the page, I was only asking if it was anywhere where I could take a full look at it. It stands to reason that if only admins can see the content, then only admins would be qualified to figure out whether it should have been deleted in the first place. If that snippet from wikirage is all that exists, there don't seem to be any reliable sources. Dayewalker (talk) 20:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

But lack of reliable sources for an article in the process of being written is not grounds for speedy deletion! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see the full article so I can't comment on this specific one, but yes, yes they can. The mainspace is not the place to write an unsourced article, as I've tried to explain to the author of this piece. Dayewalker (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing issues aren't grounds for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion policy, even for BLPs. And certainly not for articles that were being written when the speedy was placed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

(OD)Without proper sourcing, the subject wasn't notable. I've tried to be as helpful as I can to the author, but if you upload an unfinished, unsourced article to the mainspace, it's probably going to come back down pretty quickly. Dayewalker (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

Following on from the discussion here and Auburn Pilot's warning a few sections above on this page, I see that you have continued to disruptively edit User:Calton whilst logged out. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours. I will post the standard block template, which contains details of how to request an unblock, below. _Gb^T/c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

_Gb^T/c 14:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not make the edit I am accused of making. I am obviously not the editor who did so. I am in North America, from a school/library network. As I asked last week, this can easily be checked out as true The banned editor I am for no good reason accused of being is described as being in the Czech Republic, and the IPs involved are traced there by the "GEOLOCATE" function on the contributions page. The accusations were made in a discussion I started. But after I had logged out because the library was closing. The discussion was closed before I could respond. And there was no evidence presented at all. If you examine the edit histories there is no resemblance between what I do and what the user I am accused of being does. Even the administrator who began accusing me of being a sockpuppet (without saying whose) now says on his talk page "I have no idea if you are related to the old sockpuppet accounts mentioned." I also want to say that the disputed edit was not improper. It is the kind of deletion that the Arbitration Committee called for with regard to BLP violations on userpages. No one has seriously claimed that the material I deleted did not have BLP violations in it. I will post more from the Arbcom decisions but I have to research them a little. If this is not good enough then I ask to be unblocked so I can take this to Arbitration since I was just following Arbcom guidelines ! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

While checkuser confirms that aspect of your unblock request, the blocking admin makes a good argument that your behavior has been nonetheless disruptive. — Coren ^(talk) 13:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Given that checkuser confirms that aspect of your claim, I've asked the blocking editor to comment here on whether that was the sole basis for the block. — Coren ^(talk) 01:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I confirm Coren's findings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is  Unrelated to the IP. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock}} I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Wikipedia discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Wikipedia policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Jimmy Wales link [7]

• User was blocked at 14:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC) for 48 hours. It is now more than 48 hours later. — Athaenara ✉ 14:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name.—Sandahl (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This request is a little tl;dr for my taste, but I should note that it appears he is stating that the situation is "Kafkaesque" as in "reminiscent of the writings of Franz Kafka" (see wiktionary entry.) I don't think he's admitting at ALL to being another user. However, I find his unblock request above to be somewhat ironically Kafkaesque in its own way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Wouldn't recognize the term, no fan of Kafka, much too verbose.—Sandahl (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

So lets recap? Blocked for being a sock, shown to be completely and utterly false. Then the block reason was "oh because of that" something that wasn't part of the initial block... but hey he was blocked so he's GOTTA have a reason somewhere... lets look closely... add to that some hmmm how do you put it politely "not all that well read" admin makes a multiple sock offender out of it... quite funny. This bit made my day :) Oh and Kafka is not exactly a verbose writer ;) brilliant yes, verbose... not exactly the 1st thing that comes to mind. Jacina (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the part of your recap that you missed is that this user has been unblocked for three weeks at this point... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case as mentioned

From Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tobias_Conradi

6.2 While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".

6.6 The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

From request for clarification of the same case, arbitrators statements that directing such comments at specific people crosses the line:

My analysis is that the statement in context would definitely be read as Bedford's own opinion put into a crassly extreme form, but that no-one would seriously read it as a literal statement. It is borderline but I would incline to the view that we cannot insist on its removal. This is partly because, in applying the complained-of remarks generally without naming the users, it is difficult to read it as personally insulting. Users unfamiliar with the dispute, intrigued by the use of such a forceful description, are far more likely to hold it against Bedford especially if they investigate the circumstances. I think in his best interests he should rephrase his remarks, but I strongly suspect that it is his own reputation that will suffer if he choses not to do so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC) Note: Our newbie arb hats aren't fully on but we're being asked to comment...I agree with Brad and Sam. While Bedford's comment is highly distasteful to many in the community, it is not directed at anyone specific and is in his own user space. If it were a directed comment, I support removing it. As it is, it's primary negative affect is to the person that wrote it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

That is just last month!

From the similar request for comment on Law Lord:

Outside view by Fred Bauder Discourtesy is an increasing problem on Wikipedia. Lack of courtesy has driven a number of editors away from Wikipedia. An assertion by an editor who has departed that the reason they left was lack of courtesy is acceptable. A personal attack would involve not only identifying the person, but an attack that is personal, not merely an assertion that Wikipedia policy was not followed. We should not create a situation where not only is the policy violation tolerated, but even mention of it is forbidden.

Users who endorse this summary:

Fred Talk 13:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Law Lord (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Kim van der Linde at venus 16:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC) ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 21 December 2008 (UTC) This is really not problematic at all, and removing and protecting the user page(!) to remove that sentence is just plain absurd. --Conti|✉ 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC) PhilKnight (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Davewild (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC) MikeHobday (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2008 (UTC) --NE2 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cheers dude (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Agree with Conti. لennavecia 15:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) The best defense again libel/slander is the truth. Are there rude admins? Yes. Are there abusive admins? Yes. Are there admins who should lose the bit? Hell yes. Is it possible that Law Lord is in fact tired of dealing with them? Yes. Case closed.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 15:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Ray (talk) 18:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC) --Smashvilletalk 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC) SIS 23:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Locke Cole • t • c 10:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo

You may be pleased to know that Jimmy Wales has made comments supportive of you in relation to your efforts to remove unacceptable comments from Calton's user page and has suggested that the admin who blocked you might want to reconsider his position as an admin (not directly related to your blocking but still related to this matter). Then again you may already know or you may not care. I thought I'd mention it anyway given the bizarre way you were treated over this. 87.254.80.49 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You do realize that by starting this ANI with regards to Calton, that you have put yourself squarely in Guy's cross hairs. Be careful, they will now try to spin this so that Calton comes off as the victim here, not the aggressor. I suggest you bring this matter straight to Jimbo. 78.102.139.114 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I told you so, they are turning this into "Calton is the victim" and right on cue Guy jumped in. They are also claiming you are the banned Truthcrusader person, of course no one will run a checkuser to verify or disprove it. again, take this to Jimbo. 78.102.139.114 (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

See? With all the BS flying around about Calton claiming you are Truthcrusader, the initial reason WHY you filed the ANI is lost forever. Also lost is the two personal attacks he made a few days ago on two other editors.78.102.139.114 (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Kate Jackson

Hello. With regard to your edits to the Kate Jackson article, specifically with regard to your removal of the information regarding Jackson's two treatments for cancer, it seems as though you don't understand the purpose of editing. If you're interested in being a constructive editor rather than a destructive one, you might want to consider that the appropriate edit here would not be to remove the uncited material, but to A) find a citation yourself for uncited information, or B) placing a cite tag on that particular sentence or section.

If you are interested enough in an article to edit it, and have the time to enter the edit page and make the edit, it seems as though you would have the time to Google search "Kate Jackson" "breast cancer" and add the reference yourself. As I read that you do your editing work during time at a library, it would seem a greater degree of source information would be available to you there than the average person, as libraries typically subscribe to paid news sites. Barring this, you should take note of the other information on the page relevant to your edit: the Category:breast cancer survivors page links to the Kate Jackson article, and this is evident from that category's tag in the Jackson article. But what is the value to you or another reader of removing this fact from her biography, and from the list of cancer survivors?

Kate Jackson was treated for breast cancer in 1987 and again around 1991. While the first bout was something she kept secret, the second made her decide to make her health publicly known, resulting in her being the subject of a cover story in People magazine. She also underwent open heart surgery in 1994 after discovering she had been born with an Atrial septal defect. She has been active in spreading awareness of both conditions. Please take an interest in the subjects of your edits; when they are clearly not vandalism, spend at least the same minute or two searching for a source as you would editing the material out. If you don't care enough to do so, the answer is to place a cite tag or to walk away from the article. A better article is not made by the removal of accurate and citable information. Removing the information without giving other editors the heads-up that a source is required means that your diminishment of the article is unlikely to attract the attention of editors who can do the job you choose not to. Abrazame (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Azzareya Curtis

Hello. I saw you previously prodded Curtis' article as NN and for having no reliable sources, so I just thought I'd let you know I AfD'd it for basically the same reasons the other day, if you wanted to join in. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azzareya Curtis  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 16:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Mihaly

Thank you for your contributions to the Robert Mihaly AfD page. I agree with your feedback! Carolinequarrier (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Your "Strong keep" on girlfriend of aristocrat

Hiya Hullaballoo, I read your "Strong Keep" for the Axelsson Living persons bio, and I'd have to disagree. Reading thru the Swedish and German papers, she has no relationship to the Danish royal house but her boyfriend (they aren't engaged) does, distantly. (I do a lot of royalty stuff and it's hard to keep the "pretty princess!" fandom from swamping Wiki.) Her books aren't notable and the stuff that's in those articles is basically fluff that's paid public relations. There are literally thousands of minor German princes populating the country so I can't see why the girlfriend of one of them gets a Wiki page. Most of the supporting documentation is like reading the National Enquirer only with worse errors; for instance, B Bladen has her as non-English speaking although she was born, raised, and educated in the US through high school. Anyway, she looks pretty with makeup and her boyfriend must really like her, but I'm not seeing that as notable. Best to you, PR (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Dan Schlund

The decision to delete the article Dan Schlund is now being reviewed. You have been sent this message because you have previously been involved in the AfD discussion(s) concerning this article. If you are interested in the review discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 3. Thank you. Esasus (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Krystle Lina´s article

I undid to my last edition the article Krystle Lina because the references has been deleted, and after has been added the deletion quote, but if equal you think the article need more notabillity contact me again --AchedDamiman (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)