User talk:Kevin

Please note that if you post something for me here, I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, I have it watched so you can reply there.

It just makes for easier reading. Thanks.

I'm also Kevin on Commons, and Kevin on meta.

---

Lefevre Peninsula Primary School deletion

I had noticed the copyright message that appeared after i posted the first part of the article. I was in the process of writing the rest of the article, as well as removing the copy'ed sections.

Could the page be un-deleted, so i can finish the page and not have to type out the small amount i had all ready done or have the page moved to another page in my subspace so i can work on it. Thankyou, (ps im watching this page) --DarkAxi0m (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to fix it very shortly, by which I mean in the next hour or so? Kevin (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Lookin at the time now, i dont think ill be able to do it as soon as whats needed, ive got to goto the school to get more info and take a photo or two anyway. Ill finish it after ive done that. If its not too much trouble could i get a copy of what was done. Thank you for your time. --DarkAxi0m (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it all bar the history bit that was copied from the website. Kevin (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia

Why this party is called "liberal" party? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure. Why do you ask? Tha article sheds little light on the matter. Kevin (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh Thank GOD

Thanks for semi-protecting my page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The f**king troll is back! Dang It!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Thanks for semi-ing Greg's talk page. The vandal is also attacking User talk:E Wing, perhaps even more relentlessly. You may want to semi that too. Thanks again. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

nvm, I see you already got it :) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Lonny Fame" really is nonsense

Hi, Kev. I got a whopping 89 Google hits for this group and if this direct quote from down the page isn't nonsense, I don't know what is:

"Between the Belltones, there are 23 children and 14 grand children - all of which are either unemployed or in reform school. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it illegal for a Belltone to reproduce in the state of California. Thirteen other states have similar legislature pending. This is in direct contrast to Puerto Rico's Lonny Fame and the Belltones Day, held whenever it snows.

Thurston, Kooch and DelGredo rejoined the group for the 2006 Lonny Fame and the Belltones Reunion, held in Lawrence Kansas [1]. Kooch was temporarily released from prison for the event and performed flawlessly in cuffs and leg irons." --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to differentiate between nonsense and bullshit. I think this falls into the second category. I found some minor evidence that the group did exist, even if they are not notable. The bits you quoted above seem to be vandalism added later. If your G3 tag doesn't do it, then it will surely sink at AfD. Kevin (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL! Yup, where male bovines congregate, stuff like this can be found. I'd just hate like heck to see these guys get their yuks if this ever went as far as AfD. You're one of the good ones, Kev.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I've looked through the history your G3 tag is spot on. Sorry to make you jump through the hoops. Kevin (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry, my friend. I must say I've actually enjoyed this. I was in the right place at the right time on RC patrol and caught me a sneaky little sonofagun. Signing off for the night and I hope we meet again tomorrow. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

XR Backup .. deleted again, blatent advertising?

When i wrote the page, i followed the guide lines and the page was not a blatent advertising and was not even an ad. The page described XR Backup in a neutral point of view as stated in the guidelines. Why was the page removed and how is it different from this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventis_BackupSuite_2008

Please provide a prompt response regarding the actual content of the page. The page describes the software program and describes how it works and provides information about usage and limitations. Please explain why it is not suitable for wikipedia with comparison to the link above.

Also please avoide using the attitude with threats to blocking. (I already got that on my talk page for no reason) Please, try to be a bit civilized. I did not have any communication with any admin/editor on wikipedia who doesn't have an obviouse attitude. I thought wikipedia was a solid professional firm and with that i expect professional communication.

Thank you.

Dee.0x29a (talk) 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

First, perhaps you could show me where I have had an "attitude", or been uncivil towards you, given that this is our first communication. I deleted the article because it seemed mainly designed to show the features of a product. You would need to show where this product has been written about in reliable independent publications, i.e. a magazine etc. As to Ventis BackupSuite 2008, I have doubts as to whether that product should have an article either. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for reasons why the existence of one article is not a good argument for the existence of another. Kevin (talk) 21:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read the response on my (talk) page. now I have also another quesion, is there away to get the content of the page back? I sure can use what I wrote and post it on some review site, I didn't keep a copy, and it was an effort that I could use somewhere else.. thanks. Dee.0x29a (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed you a copy. Kevin (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks, can you answer the questions on my talk page when you have some time? thanks in advanced. Dee.0x29a (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kollage

This is one of the most famous Hindi bands in Kolkata India, have brought new genres into Hindi music and have cut an original album as well. I did not put up the article in a proper way so you could not understand the significance. I am giving reference of one of the top newspapers in India "The Telegraph" (http://www.telegraphindia.com/1061026/asp/calcutta/story_6877836.asp. Can I put this back up?

Thanks, Incorrigible man (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I did see the article in The Telegraph, but I still felt that the band did not meet the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. I'll undelete for now, and move your userspace. That way you can fix it at your leisure. Kevin (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Article is now here - User:Incorrigible man/Kollage Kevin (talk) 07:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Kollage

Thanks, Kevin. Will you please let me know specifically what needs to be done to make is qualify. For example photograph of their lead singer performing in Cardiff (I will give you the link to that website to prove authenticity) or photographs of the band winning the rock contest in Mumbai or anything of that sort. Because in India (just in case you are not aware) there's not much coverage for independent Indian band music. The entire media is focussed on the Mumbai film industry music. A band survives on stage shows, word of mouth and album sales. To some extend radio (FM) as well. So giving extensive references of printed form is very very difficult. Also let me point out another famous Indian band named "Krosswindz" who have an article on wiki but they have not given a single reference. So I was confused about why Kollage's page does not meet the guidelines.It is very important for them as they are about to come out with their second album. So please help. Incorrigible man (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of WP:MUSIC is that the primary criteria for inclusion is multiple non-trivial published works in reliable independent sources. So the Telegraph article only fails by virtue of not being multiple. Other criteria such as charted hits or awards don't seem to apply for Kollage. Regarding Krosswindz, firstly I don't hold much with the but it's the same as this article argument, and they have received extensive news coverage, easily fulfilling the multiple non-trivial published works criteria. Does this help? Kevin (talk) 07:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

User:24.215.78.199

Hi Kevin. I noticed you issued a short block to this user after a small spate of vandalism. This is one of a number of IPs that are strangely attracted to messing with articles on Waylon Jennings, Shooter Jennings, Jessi Colter, and several others relating to country/western music and The Dukes of Hazzard. I also started with short blocks, but found that the vandal returns immediately after it expires and starts it up again. When someone attacks these articles, I've started blocking for fairly long periods, while watchlisting the talk pages so I'll notice if an actual valid user is requesting an unblock. I'm dropping this message here because I want active vandalism patrollers to be aware that these aren't really isolated attacks. They've been going on for months. Joyous! | Talk 23:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've added these to my watch list, and yes, blocking for longer periods seems like a good idea. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

3hagel0209.jpg

Hi. I've never downloaded an image on to wikipedia. Did you see my note on the image you deleted? I have an email with permission. Do you know where I send it to? --Npnunda (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I just sent a copy of the email I got and I attached the photo to permissions-en@wikipedia.org. I can only assume that was why it was deleted. --Npnunda (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You did upload upload an image - it's shown in your log. I deleted the image because, email not withstanding, permission was only given for use on Wikipedia, and images here must have a free license without usage restrictions. See WP:CSD#I3 for more info. Kevin (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this is the first image I've downloaded. As in I've never downloaded an image before and don't know the process. --Npnunda (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh OK. What you need to do is get permission to release the image under a free licence, such as one of the Creative Commons licenses, with no usage restrictions such as non-commercial use, or Wikipedia only use. Unfortunately the process and licensing are very difficult to get your head around. This license is the one recommended. Kevin (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just read up on the polices and you did the right thing deleting it. If I want to use the image, I need to send the guy another email. I'll wait a few days and then decide what to do. Thanks. --Npnunda (talk) 03:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Saving Marilyn Sewell

Hello! On 25 June, you deleted an article by another editor about the theologian and writer Marilyn Sewell, based on copyright infringement. I wanted to update you that I volunteered to rewrite the article from scratch (the article falls into the Unitarian Universalist WikiProject, of which I am a member). The new article is now online and it cites four different sources. The initial source that raised the G12 concern (the subject's web site) was not included as a source for the text of the article; it is strictly listed as an external link. Cheers! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice work! Kevin (talk) 04:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! :) Ecoleetage (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!

For banning that nice guy Mormoncrunk and his alt Avengercrunk --Numyht (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

User 98.218.158.45

Hi Kevin, about a week ago you assisted me with a user shadowing and undoing all of my edits, sadly after their ban ended they have started again. Could you please assist me once more?Boston2austin (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP again, for 2 weeks. Hopefully they will find something else to do in that time. Kevin (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Join Us

Rushyo has started a sockpuppet case against the IP troll. I'm joining in, you should too!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucas Lobos

I guess you just deleted the Lucas Lobos image. All the rest of Juare10's "self made" images are obvious copyvios. I don't have the image deletion experience or the time to deal with it. I have to be at work in 6 hours and need some sleep. Perhaps you could delete the pics and deal with the user. Cheers EP 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to my list. Kevin (talk) 00:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

All images now deleted or tagged as missing rationale, and I've left a note for the user. Kevin (talk) 02:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

AIV Question

Re these edits, first of all thanks for following up on my edit...and second, do you think my action was correct? I'm new with the mop and I want to get it right. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  02:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank, I had protected before I saw your comment. In this case, the IP hadn't been warned adequately to be blocked, so your comment was spot on. I think I'm only slightly less new at this than you. See you around Kevin (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User page

Hi Kevin, please avoid editing in my user space. Best --Weissmann (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, so long as you don't put fair use images there. Kevin (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Technopreneur Pre-Seed Fund

Hi Kevin, in reference to the article that you have deleted earlier, Technopreneur Pre-Seed Fund Programme<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Technopreneur_Pre-Seed_Fund_Programme&action=edit&redlink=1> - I am giving these links/references to as ‘reliable sources; to substantiate the entry. Do let me know if further info is needed. Thanks.

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/386/1/A-chance-for-ICT-firms-to-get-seed-funding/Page1.html

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/170/1/Almost-RM14-Mln-Disbursed-Under-MSC-Malaysia-Pre-Seed-Fund/Page1.html

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/143/1/MSC-Malaysia-Succeeds-In-Creating-Bumi-Technopreneurs/Page1.html

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/133/1/Mosti-Allocates-RM2-Million-To-Help-Creative-Talents/Page1.html

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/137/1/Youths-to-get-seed-money-to-start-up-animation-business/Page1.html

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/138/1/Govt-launches-creative-innovation-centre/Page1.html

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/139/1/Msian-technopreneurs-face-challenging-year/Page1.html

http://newscentre.msc.com.my/articles/136/1/Creative-multimedia-moves-forward/Page1.html

Asiah b (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have forgotten this. I'll try and do a reply today. Kevin (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

ACT (Mouthwash)

Could you please explain how it was blatant advertising? Thank you if you can. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-10-2008 • 01:06:42

In essence, it looked to me like the only purpose of the article was to promote a brand of mouthwash. There were no independent sources, and the article contained no content other than a brief description of the product, and that is comes in various flavours. If there are any independent sources covering this product more than trivially, I will be happy to restore it. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got sourcing for it now:

http://oralcareshop.com/fluoride-act-mouthwash.htm

http://www.associatedcontent.com/video/30461/reach_act_mouthwash.html

http://www.dentalfearcentral.org/forum/showthread.phpt=4165

Good enough for restoration? Or do I need more? Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-10-2008 • 13:48:39

Much more I think. The first is an advert, and the second 2 are sites where anyone can contribute, thus making them no a reliable source. What you are looking for are articles about the product in mainstream newspapers or magazines. Kevin (talk) 04:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

You deleted my Green Harbor picture, which is ok because I'm going to take one myself today, but you don't have to notify me or anything? Just wondering. Beam 12:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

If I am deleting an image I don't notify usually because the image was already in CAT:CSD. Your image was tagged automatically for speedy deletion when you uploaded it without selecting a license. In this case, the image was clearly replaceable, so there was no justification that could be applied for fair use. That being the case, I saw no benefit in leaving a notification, as the end result would be the same. Kevin (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my talk page. Cheers, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Anandi Ma

I am upset that you have deleted the page I created on Anandi Ma. I would have preferred that you would at least discuss the matter with me rather than acting at once. Surely you should have asked me to provide proof of notability? Some of the main points regarding her notability are that she runs and maintains an ashram in the state of Gujarat in India, she has disciples in several countries (including the United States, India, the Czech Republic, Italy and Indonesia. Meditation teachers affiliated with the Dhyanyoga Centers organization (based in Antioch, California in the United States) can be found in each of those countries. The Dhyanyoga Centers nonprofit organization is of note. Their ashram in Nikora, Gujarat also provides services to the poor including medical camps (such as eye surgery) and free food, among other things. I think that is proof of notability. User: Rabble Rouser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.90.66 (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are upset about this article. The article was left for 11 hours after you were notified of the notability concerns, which was enough time to either address the concerns, or add {{hangon}} to the page. For guidelines on the notability of people, see WP:BIO. The relevant part of that is: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Kevin (talk) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Request

Like you deleted Street Fighter (franchise), can you speedily delete Dragon Ball (franchise), Dragon Ball (Franchise), Dragon Ball franchise, Dragon Ball Franchise, Dragon ball Franchise, and Dragon ball franchise? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The first cannot be deleted as it has a pre-merge history that needs to be retained. The rest seem like reasonable redirects. Street Fighter (franchise) was deleted as [WP:CSD#G6]] to revert a page move, but that criteria does not fit these. Kevin (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I see. But you're sure Dragon ball Franchise is a plausible one? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you unsure? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Since you insist on an answer, yes I am. Perhaps you could explain your issue with the redirects? Kevin (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is for future reference. It's not that I despise them or anything, it would be nice to know when exactly to create a redirect and when to have one deleted. In other words, should I recreate Street Fighter (franchise) and make a bunch of other similar redirects? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I would create a redirect from a commonly used alternate name, or a common miss-spelling or alternate capitalisation, for example Bill gates redirects to Bill Gates. Redirects allow those using the search box to find things more easily. In this case I would not recreate this redirect, because it does not seem like a common miss-spelling etc. I did not delete the others because they have been there for a while, and are doing no harm. Kevin (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ciclopentanul

This article already exists in Cyclopentanol. Becky Sayles (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pick it up with the dodgy spelling. Kevin (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get it at first. Seemed odd for a science-related article to be misspelled so badly. Becky Sayles (talk) 06:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it might have been correct in the other language. Kevin (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RC Patrol

Thanks for dealing with those pages I found on RC patrol this morning. There really are not enough people doing the important but perhaps a little boring work of deleting pages that need speedying. Dolive21 (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png

I refer to your comment at User talk:Celtus. Celtus is correct; a clan badge is a plant, not a fixed image or symbol. The best way to illustrate a "badge" would be to illustrate the plant. The best way to illustrate a plant would be a photo or drawing of the plant in question. The best photo or drawing to use would be one that does not infringe copyright. Use of the Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png may violate the artists copyright. The statement "There is no copyright on any ancient Scottish clan symbols" at Image:Clan Ramsay (Plant Badge).png is not a fact, and is misleading. Blue Harebell, the referred badge, is nothing more than the plant in question, not a specific image or drawing. As such it is replaceable with any picture of a Blue Harebell. I think the matter is of concern. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that there is a difference of opinion here, I suggest going to images for deletion for a broader view on the matter. Kevin (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ring Magazine's list of 100 greatest punchers of all time

Hello I was wondering if there was any way to get the list on wikipedia. This list is critical to boxings history. Maybe there is some way I could contact the Ring magazine which made the list and they could give permission for its use please help in this problem thank you. Reallmmablogger (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My images

You recently deleted a whole batch of my golf images. They were used under fair use as other yearly golf tournaments have (i.e. Image:2008OpenLogo.gif). They were also brought to a third party in hopes of being labeled the same way as the example I gave. If you can re-add those until that discussion is over that would be great. Wikipedia:Third_opinion, see active disagreements. Thanks. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As had been explained to you some time ago, they need a fair use rationale, as well as the license template. I would have just added the rationale myself had I though that the images were actually fair use. I did not see how they passed WP:NFCC #8 which states "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". In my opinion, they add nothing but decoration to those articles. Kevin (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

There is precedent for those logos to exist. Check out the 2008 U.S. Open Golf Championship page. It isn't for one person to decide if they should exist or not. Clearly precedent has been made here. And yes, the logo decorates the page, but in sports logos are important. People associate different teams, events, etc sometimes based on logos and pictures. Why does each team have a nickname? It really doesn't matter does it? But it helps with the association. I know it helps my memory of different events. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your example has a fair use rationale, which the images I deleted did not, despite the notice on your page. And more than one person was involved in the deletion - myself and the editor who tagged them as missing a fair use rationale (and notified you). Kevin (talk) 07:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you are missing the point. Those images are all the same. They are golf tournament logos. We are not dealing with apples and oranges here. Those fair use rationales take time, but I assure you those images will get them. I was out of town this last week and unfortunately couldn't get to them. The user that tagged them was unfair and tagged them retroactively. When I initially uploaded them I didn't know they needed a rationale. Can you please do me this favor of reinstating them for at least 24 hours so I can save them. They are currently not on my hard drive. I don't see any harm in that. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

See Image:1994OpenLogo.jpg or Image:1997OpenLogo.jpg. These are two images User:Stepshep missed while tagging my articles. They now have a proper fair-use rationale. I can get these done very quickly. I have demonstrated good faith edits here and have listed those deleted images at deletion review. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I see from those 2 examples that the logos are cropped photographs from this site. While it may be fair use for just the logo, the photographs are definitely not fair use. I had assumed that you were an avid golf fan and had taken the pics yourself. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The owner of the flags is not selling the photographs, he is selling the flags. The photos have absolutely no value to him. I'll shoot him off an E-mail just to be 100%, but I'm positive it won't be a problem. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the owner of that website cannot sell the logos as themselves. They don't belong to him. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you send the E-mail where it needs to go? Its been sent to the E-mail you use through Wikipedia. Please help me out there sense you seem to know what needs to be done. Thanks. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your email. Basically, Ryan needs to list the images to be released, and specify which license. Kevin (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you ask him? You know exactly what needs to be done. I rather not E-mail him fifty times to get it exactly right. Use the E-mail I sent to in the original message. Thanks! --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okie dokie, all the non-tour flags images have the appropriate fair use rationale tags affixed to the image pages. Thanks for restoring those. Let me know about the others. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 06:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, Baby, I found a bunch of legit images for 1991,1996-Present for the PGA and 1998-Present for the US. These are true logos not cropped from flags, so if you end up reinstating Baby's images, don't reinstate over the new ones I found. Thanks! I'll let you guys know if I find more. --FourteenClowns (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

1993, 1996, and 1997 US Opens are now covered as well. --FourteenClowns (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

competitive nude female adult wrestling

With respect Kev, its not intended to be advertising, just blatent! Perhaps you should delete the World Wrestling Entertainment entry too! Or alturntivly move the material from competitive nude female adult wrestling to a sub categry of profesinal wrestling. --Godianus the Finder (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

It did read like advertising, and had it not been tagged for that, I would also have deleted is as non-notable web content. Kevin (talk) 04:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin If competitive nude female adult wrestling is non-notable you got your priorities all wrong!--Godianus the Finder (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin! I read in the policy that "simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for Blatant advertising." Your a bit shifty..Why not turn your attention to more positive work --Godianus the Finder (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleated the glass dildos pics

Hey!

Saw u deleted my pics with glass dildos. The thing is that these are the company's, and the company has released them for general public. Before i put some that had an the company logo, and another admin told me that wasn't right, so i asked the company for non logo, and they gave these to me. If you don't believe me email them using the contact form here. Can u tell me how can i upload them without being deleted.

Alexsb92 (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of emailing them for permission. Their web site clearly asserts copyright over the images, which is why I deleted them. To be uploaded here, they (or you) need to follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission to declare that the images can be used under a free license. Kevin (talk) 04:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

What would it be best: to upload them as free use or fair use because they are promotional material? Alexsb92 (talk) 15:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted

Hi Kevin i was disappointed that the page i started to work on today kane kramer has been deleted!!

This is the first time i have added to wikipedia and would like to know why it has been deleted??

David Alner Davidalner (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

David, I was not involved in this deletion, so you may be better asking Orangemike, who deleted it. The reason given was that it was a biography that did not assert notability. Note that this does not mean the subject is not notable, just that the article did not state how they were notable. If you mention these news articles you should get a favourable response. Kevin (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now that I deleted the first version, but that cannot be restored because it was a copyright violation. Kevin (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Bomberman image

I notice that you've deleted Image:Bomberman Land Touch 2.jpg with the rationale "Redundant (pixel-identical) to another image in the same file format". Can you let me know where this other image is? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim, the other inage is at Image:Bomberman Land Touch! 2 Coverart.png. Note that you will need to add an extra fair use rationale to use the image in another article. Kevin (talk) 06:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This image is not identical - this is the US cover whereas the image that was deleted was the EU cover. There are significant differences between the two, so they are certainly not "pixel-identical". For some reason someone removed the EU cover from the BLT2 article and replaced it with a US cover (which goes against the guidelines set out in the VG project); you then deleted the EU cover within a few hours which means that I'm not able to revert the article to how it previously was. Is it possible to undelete the image, or am I able to reupload the EU cover? Tim (Xevious) (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I did short circuit the deletion a bit. The image I deleted was a bit oversized for fair use, and was not used, so I deleted it now, rather than wait 7 days to delete as orphaned fair use. I'll restore it for now. Kevin (talk) 12:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Must be getting old - I didn't spot the difference. Kevin (talk) 12:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! You're right about the size, so I've reduced it a bit. Tim (Xevious) (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

CIPD deletion

Hi Kevin. Just noticed that the article CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) was deleted on 17 July. Did you delete this? Can I appeal to have this reinstated? The reason you've given is blatant advertising but I included citations and references and based the content on the RICS (Royal Institute for Chartered Surveryors) article which hasn't been deleted. It's no more advertorial than the RICS article. Also, I wasn't warned that the CIPD article would be removed so wasn't given a chance to amend it. If it can't be reinstated as it is, please can you let me know what I'd need to change to get it published again? I'll look forward to hearing from you Aligilbertson (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale on Image:40GB_PlayStation3_and_Sixaxis_Press.png

Hi. I was wandering if you could help me: The fair use rationale has been disputed on an image I uploaded. I'm not sure if I've filed it correctly because I'm sure this image is allowed under fair use as it was obtained from a press centre where the image is freely provided. Because I received the notice on my talk page from you I thought you would have more knowledge on this than me. Do I merely need to change the fair use rationale? Thanks. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I tagged this because the non-free content criteria requires that non-free images (ie an image you did not make yourself) must only be used if no free equivalent could be made. In this case, anyone could photograph their PS3 console and make a free image. I'm afraid I can't see any way that this image can be kept as fair use. You could also ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, but you will likely get the same answer. Kevin (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I'll work on a free image. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 07:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

04:22, 22 July 2008 Kevin (Talk | contribs) deleted "Iklax" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement)

Hello Kevin, I'd be gratefulm if you'd please re-instate the iKlax article. This is not a copyright infrigement, on the contrary, I am an employee of iKlax Media. You can contact me directly using the contact information on http://www.iklaxmedia.com. The information is accurate and from our websites. I may have forgotten to sign when I posted. Thanks in advance Aekstra (talk) 08:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

If it is copied from another website, then it is a copyright infringement no matter who wrote it, unless something on the website releases the content under a free license. Had I not deleted for that though, I would have deleted for not asserting notability. See the criteria at WP:CORP for notability criteria of companies. Kevin (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I believe there is sufficient information on iKlax in many media, worldwide. As the release of a new audio format is very difficult. On iklaxmedia.com, the information is free to be used to describe this new technology. I'm having trouble understanding what I should do to make the article wiki-acceptable (I have read through most guidelines). Thx again Kevin.

86.65.151.132 (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I expect a response to my previous post please? Aekstra (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more I can tel you that isn't at WP:CORP. Basically, you need to show that the company is notable by adding references to where the company has been written about (beyond trivial mentions) in reliable independent sources, such as newspapers or magazines. Kevin (talk) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

MC

I'm not in an edit war. I am a responsible user reverting repeated vandalism, misinformation and page blanking by the IP 76.227.110.225. I have also placed a notice at admin requesting a block. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The edits you are reverting are not blatant vandalism, and are not therefore exempt from WP:3RR. Also, putting block templates on a users page does not block them, it just makes things harder for others trying to sort the situation out. Kevin (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The user was deliberately placing misinformation (inserting false band member names, etc.) on page after page of music articles, including Motley Crue. They then blanked my home page and the page of another user attempting to revert the vandalism. In this case, I don't believe WP:3RR applies and the IP should be (at least temporarily) blocked, as you've done. In any event, they stopped for the moment. Best, A Sniper (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Our little Grawpie just doesn't get it...

Hi, Kevin. Doggone it, I go to take a "wikibreak" and still I find myself playing "wikicop." Oh, well.  :) FYI, I happened to notice that a lot of Our Grawpie's previous socks have been reblocked with the e-mail function disabled. THought it might be prudent to do the same with this last cleverly named sock. No need to answer; I've redirected my talk page to my userpage. Talk to ya soon. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PS: Have another cookie. It'll get the essence of Grawp off of your palate.

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cheers. See you on your return. Kevin (talk) 06:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You betcha. Thanks for all you do. Cleaning up this playpen after Grawpie and his widdle playmates do their poopies is a lesson in real patience. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

my page

If you would have bothered to check. You of seen I was not in an edit war. But merely reverted vandalism. In fact the vandal has now been permanently blockedSwampfire (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the IP has been blocked for 12 hours. What you did was revert edits that were not blatant vandalism, which is edit warring. Kevin (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What I did was revert blatant vandalism. If you actually read what he put in you would know it was blatant. In fact The same IP went to my user page and vandalized it as well. But I guess you think that wasn't blatant too. And A.Sniper had made his block permanent after he was temporarily blocked, but then went to my page and vandalized it. Swampfire (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I can back up what Swampfire has stated: the IP user placed misinformation (which on the policy page is noted as vandalism when not done in good faith) into the article, and other articles as well. They then vandalized our own pages, placing a sockpuppet notice from his/her talk page on our pages. If you feel that only justifies 12 hours, that's your call... A Sniper (talk) 07:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah his call, But I don't see how a blatant vandal, only gets 12 hours. When if you check the user page he has already been blocked before for 31 hours. And his whole page is full of warnings for vandalizing. On Motley Crue alone first he vandalized, then reverted 6 times in about an hour. Which is why I stopped at 3.Swampfire (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Cantril Farm image deleted

Kevin, I can't find a reason why you deleted one of the images on the Cantril Farm page. Can you please explain when you get time. Thank you. Dave (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dave, it was Image:L28BaronsHey.jpg, and was deleted because the license was for non-commercial use only. I've undeleted it so you can fix the license. When you select the non-commercial or Wikipedia only license it automatically tags the image for deletion. Kevin (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, sorry about that. Thanks for undeleting it. Dave (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Aurora feint

Kevin, I saw you deleted an earlier version of an article on new iPhone game Aurora Feint as promotional. I took another shot at it, trying for a more neutral POV and adding lots of cites. Also I mentioned an interesting and brewing privacy issue around the game's community features. Let me know what you think of the revision.Stu (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your version looks fine. Cheers Kevin (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Stu (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin

I appreciate the help with the IP user. I think you'll find that the user has created the account Heavymetalis4ever2. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I given this one a 3RR warning. Thanks for the heads up. Kevin (talk) 05:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Star Movies

You're the first one who said that it adds nothing to the users understanding.(Gqegg (talk) 11:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC))

Recent deletion of article on Muslims

An article on the casualties of Islam is not an attack on ALL Muslims, the same way an article on the Holocaust is not an attack on all Germans. Unless wikipedia finds it too politically incorrect to have articles that are anything but unadulterated praise for Islam. --Comradesandalio (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I deleted because the article was sourced from an opinion piece, which I feel is not reliable enough for the content. It was nothing to do with being politically incorrect. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Serge Trifkovic has written in a scholaly book of his that 100 million Hindus have been murdered by Moslem extremists. Would that be ok to include in an article?

Anyway, one of the reasons given for the deletion was that it was an attakc on ALL Moslems when it was only an "attack" on those moslems who did the actual killing, which SHOULD not be controversial.--Comradesandalio (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Using the term Moslem extremists narrows your subject down considerably from political Islam, which is what I deleted. If this book is a reliable source them I'm sure there is some place for the content. Kevin (talk) 01:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

HOKLAS

Hello, Kelvin, I do not have talk page. You might email me at <redacted>

I have created a page of HOKLAS. Because I cannot find anything about HOKLAS, I tried to create a page. When the system tells me to be under speedy deletion, I tried to add more content but suddently when I save the page. Wiki tells me that you have deleted the page.

First question: is it meaning that all my typing has been deleted by you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickyip (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You do have a talk page Patrick - at User talk:Patrickyip. I'll reply there. Kevin (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Dangling Paperwork for Soccermeko

You handled the checkuser, but the SSP case that I opened (apparently unnecessarily) is still dangling open.
Kww (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted images

Hi, you recently deleted Image:LesleySJA.jpg, Image:DaveySJA.jpg and Image:Chrissie JacksonSJA.jpg. I, the uploader, was not informed of their nominations for deletion. Please could you explain why I was not informed? Wolf of Fenric (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

They were tagged by User:Betacommand, who should have informed you at the time. I don't know why you were not informed in this case as Betacommand seems to have informed you in other cases. Kevin (talk) 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Once:radix

I appreciate the difficulty in establishing a balanced editorial standard, particularly for something as massive as Wikipedia. However the relevance of the content and the many inconsistencies I see make me wonder why you would cut the piece - once:radix.

As an example of a clear violation, check out Morfik. Though there are many more examples.

In our specialist area: The entry for Rich Internet Applications has slowly but surely moved to become a blatant promotion of Microsoft and Adobe. I see this in many places.

It is easy enough to get an 'independent' ghost contributor. Surely, the quality of the content and its relevance to the subject media must be considered or risk becoming a site that is trivialized or manipulated by special interest groups.

I agree completely with the need for independence and relevance. This is why I have chosen to not create an entry. The decision by one of our consultants in Europe to create an entry was completely his own idea and he made no attempt to disguise his association with this project. That was naîve of him but reflects his honesty.

If you Google once:radix you will see that it is an important development in the Rich Internet Application space. There are few people as qualified to write about it as Vadim.

As I wrote at the beginning, it is a difficult issue to find the right balance. But to omit something as significant as once:radix on the grounds of source while there are so many obviously flagrant abuses is problematic. I don't think you have the balance right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.226.21 (talk)

I'm not quite sure what you're asking here, but I deleted this article as a word for word copyright violation of [1]. If you rewrite in your own words, then so long as notability is asserted there is no problem. Kevin (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Kevin=

Were you trying to get in touch with me? If so... you can get back to me.

Best Regards;

Al

71.135.229.105 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Aedwardmoch71.135.229.105 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember trying to get in touch with you. Perhaps if you remind me where the discussion was. Kevin (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Michael Voss

... is back again. Some salt may be required :) Thanks, Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I've issued a copyvio warning. I'll protect if that fails. Kevin (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other MascotGuy socks

Thanks again, Kevin.  :) That MG sock you just blocked had created five other socks, none of which were blocked, but at least none had edited. They're listed just above the legit entry for "Captain Flame Guy" on the MascotGuy long term abuse page. Thanks again. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

• PS: He'd also created some new articles and redirects, all of which I'd tagged as speedy deletions. The one about that non-notable freeway bridge in San Diego is something like two years old, had been edited by several other of his socks and was still little more than a nanostub. I'll think of him the next time I'm crossing that bridge; it's smack dab in downtown...and it's just a crushingly ordinary freeway bridge. I'll give him credit for noting it was once part of US 395, though. The road geek in me insists.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

From a fellow communist Chinese cabalist...

Hi Kevin - I came across the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to nulify or reverse WP:N and found out that I wasn' the only one who had the honor of receiving a lovely email from User:Julie Dancer - just thought I'd check in with you. --Jiuguang (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I couldn't help noting the email there. I have no idea why she thinks Communist Chinese would want to delete that article. Kevin (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kleon AfD

Sure the AfD is pointy. And it's a misplaced attack (whether justified or not) on User:Gwen Gale. However, deleting the AfD seems sure to add to Radioinfoguy's resentment (if only for all the time he wasted on writing it up). He says he wants the article deleted; it's not obvious at all to me that he doesn't want it deleted, and I take him at his word. If his reason for deletion is unconvincing (or nonexistent), this can be pointed out. -- 05:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am more interested in removing a personal attack on Gwen than avoiding Radioinfoguy's resentment. If he truly wants the article deleted, then he can put up a reasonable nomination. Kevin (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The personal attack is real, and misplaced at best. But I read the AfD as presenting (amid a lot of huffing and puffing and of course irrelevant material) an argument that might be completely invalid but that was worth some moments' thought: that another user had turned the article into a personal fief, and that it so egregiously violated at least one of WP's rules (WP:OWN) that it deserved deletion. If that was an argument, it certainly could have been presented a lot more persuasively. I hope Radioinfoguy cools down and either learns to live with the article more or less as it is now or puts forward a good AfD proposal. Actually I have some sympathy for him: the atmosphere surrounding this article has not been helped by repeated gnat-bites from an obsessed troll who hasn't been able to dick around with the article much (sprotection) but has been tiresome on its talk page (also now sprotected); this is a typical "contribution". -- Hoary (talk) 10:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Either AfD the page, or allow valid sources. Gwen doesn't own the article. She needs to stop acting like it. My reasons for deletion were valid. Leave it to the high and mighty armchair intellectuals to cencor this information, about Gwen's abuse of power, with your BS reasons. Why not address the points presented? Too difficult? That would require a counter rationale and you don't have one. Put the AfD up the way it was originally written. Radioinfoguy (talk) 11:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to do that. If you actually want the article deleted then redo the AfD with a brief reason related to some policy or content guideline. Any discussion about another editors behavior is not appropriate in the nomination. Kevin (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Rockall 1956.JPG

deletion declined - no reason given to dispute fair use

I direct your attention to the talk page. 217.36.107.9 (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. So you disagreed with me. The image is gone, so there's no problem is there? Kevin (talk) 09:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Recap

I decided to withhold further comment until I had some sleep and time to critique the logic behind your deletion decision. I am delaying a trip this morning so that I can provide you with a response to your statement supporting deletion.

Your supporting statement for deletion is as follows:

"The result was Delete. The deletion argument was that this is original research when the article title is used to describe an algorithm, and that the references do not support the notability of the subject. Despite the verbose nature of the opposing comment, these arguments were not clearly refuted. The use of socks to give the appearance of greater support is also extremely problematic, and I have counted those opinions as being from User:Julie Dancer. Kevin (talk) 23:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)"

• As for "The deletion argument was that this is original research when the article title is used to describe an algorithm..."

In reality the article title names a type of classification which arranges attributes in order of their significance. Within the deletion discussion itself the calim is made by Dcoetzee at 02:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC) that other algorithms exist, namely Examples of relevant works are "A Fast, Bottom-Up Decision Tree Pruning Algorithm with Near-Optimal Generalization" and "An Efficient Algorithm For Optimal Pruning Of Decision Trees". which are capable of performing the function the article title names:

If this is accurate then the right way to handle a necessary correction would be to add these algorithms to the article instead of nominating the article for deletion.

In anticipation of these other algorithms being added I immediately changed the body of the text to read "The algorithm used for this purpose..." to "One algorithm used for this purpose..." Since I do not now have access to the article's history as the result of your deletion I can not give you the exact date and time. However, it was prior to the end of the deletion discussion. (Incidentally, it has been suggested by a Professor at Cornell that deleting the article was for the purpose of eliminating the article history.)

Normally as a Wikipedia user I would expect other users who have an issue with such wording to correct it themselves as this is one reason the Wikipedia was setup this way. The Wikipedia still claims to be "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."

The impression I have now is that while there were an abundance of editors in the beginning who edited articles that there is now an abundance of spoiled children who expect articles to be perfect from the beginning or for someone else to edit them. They simply do not understand that each article is considered to be a work in progress and the Wikipedia being an opportunity to learn how to write and to edit rather than being completed. Instead of doing any work themselves they find it much easier to go around deleting articles which remain incomplete or have not yet reached a state of perfection, especially a maintenance edit like adding an inline reference that would require them to do any real work themselves.

• As for "...references not supporting the notability of the subject"

You can not logically make this statement without reading the reference or references first and you certainly can not follow this with a statement like "Despite the verbose nature of the opposing comment, these arguments were not clearly refuted." All of the arguments supporting deletion are clearly refuted in the text of the primary reference to which I deferred. Just as you saying that a stop light was green in a court of law when you did not look at the light would be a lie so would be claiming the reference did not support notability when you did not read it. I know you did not read the primary reference because all arguments supporting deletion are clearly refuted by the both the primary reference and the references it contains.

• As for "The use of socks to give the appearance of greater support is also extremely problematic...

This shows you did not read or comprehend the response I made in the deletion discussion or only scanned it. I explained that each of the user names were created so that I could track the use of my own resources better, similar to the need on the part of the Wikipedia to require bots to have their own user name even though several may be owned by the same user. Eventually at least one of my computes will be used to accommodate bots, but currently I am able to meet all of my needs by downloading the Wikipedia and mining it off line.

Since the existence of the alternate user names was stated and known by all from the beginning of the deletion discussion there is no way they could have given the appearance of offering greater support against deletion except to persons who did no read and come up to speed on what ground the deletion discussion had already covered.

Here is a copy of my first response to that accusation:

"Use of these various resources can not be tracked online in any other way and contrary to Jiuguang's imagination they have never been used in a sock puppet fashion and are not intended to be used in that way. They simply serve my own need to keep track of what I and my resources are doing and I defy you to show that they have ever been used intentionally in any other way. Julie Dancer (talk) 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)"

Here is a copy of my second response to the accusation of using alternate user names for the purpose giving any appearance whatsoever of greater support against deletion

"It can skew the view of consensus perhaps in an argument but only when it is not known and I have never engaged in an argument on the basis of numbers versus reason. My basis for winning any argument is the basis of being right not the basis of out numbering. In that regard what about the fact that skewing the view of consensus is in far greater danger from Wikipedia members who have something in common like belonging to the same robotics cabal or who share a mutual obligation from belonging to the same religious sect or school of thought and know who each other are. This happens, as a matter of fact, quite frequently in the Wikipedia. Julie Dancer (talk) 02:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)"

As for support for deletion not being cabalized, if you look on Jiuguang's talk page for the day or day after he first posted his robotics project template banner on the Optimal classification discussion page and on the his AI project page which I think he has already deleted you will find that he and - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} have robotics connection.

Since they use their real name as their user names I am convinced now that their mind set was that Julie Dancer was the name of a real live girl. This would explain why Jiuguang was looking for other information about Julie Dancer and how he found the other user names, and why Jiuguang and Jameson Tai were playing good cop, bad cop with Julie Dancer on “her” talk page and on the deletion discussion page.

Have a nice day.

Julie Dancer (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)