User talk:Kafziel

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 2 days days are automatically archived to User talk:Kafziel/archive6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Congratulations!

		The Barnstar of Good Humour
		You've won yourself a barnstar for this edit over here! you can do whatever you want with this barnstar! —BoL 05:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to help. :) Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 05:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax

Although he has certainly been troublesome in the past, I don't think blocking him for revert warring is anyway justified for the reasons I've stated on his talk page. I've taken the liberty of unblocking him. Naturally I will keep an eye on him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He's been warned (and blocked) for edit warring in the past, so another set of warnings aren't needed. He didn't technically break 3RR, but he came close enough. Judging by his response to your unblock, which is the same response he always has to blocks, and his continued harassment of K.Lastochka just before the block, I'd say it should have been obvious that he isn't the best user to stake your reputation on. I'm keeping an eye on him. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 15:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are probably right but I'm hoping that by being on his side in this matter will mean that I have more influence on his behaviour. I'm ever optamistic anyway. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 4	21 January 2008	About the Signpost

Special: 2007 in Review, Part II	New parser preprocessor to be introduced
Commons Picture of the Year contest in final round	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Freely-licensed music, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

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 (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ocimum Biosolution

Hi, you deleted the article Ocimum Biosolution. I request you to reconsider the deletion and roll back. My resoning is that the company is significant enough to have an article of its own. (try googling Ocimum Biosolutions) to establish its notability. Is there any other criteria/issues that should be met/addressed? --hydkat 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Google results are not an indication of notability (and, even if they were, the company has only about 150 hits on the Indian Google). Aside from failing to assert notability, the article was largely a re-creation of a previously deleted page (located at Ocimum Biosolutions), as well as a copyright violation of this site and others like it. You are of course welcome to request a review, but you'll need to be prepared with multiple, reliable, independent sources to support your position. Kafziel ^{Ask me for rollback} 09:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

<edit conflict>I'm not saying googling something exclusively proves notability. But c'mon! if newspaper articles like the one by forbes.com cannot be used to verify notability then what can? They are a part of that alliance and the material printed there comes from them, if there is any other copyright issues they can be resolved once the page is up...

-hydkat 10:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And if I had know Ocimum Biosolutions was deleted back in july I would have contested it then :( --hydkat 10:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW what do you mean only 150 hits? --hydkat 10:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)