Yeah, I see you still have a retirement notice on display. I suppose it's better to have you here and there than not having you on Wiki at all. Happy writing :) --PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember when someone with the screen name Mfurniss created the Maureen Furniss and it was speedied? Well, I'll see if I can make a good article about her. I used lots of sources and I tried to get as much about her as I could. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 28 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Trim and Fit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Kenneth Fowler, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Kenneth Fowler.
The main concern is that the only possible source for this article is disappearing along with the publisher. The name is quite common amongst authors, there is even a contemporary historian of the same name with 5+ published books. I worry that there may be confusion with the name, and the confusion cannot be resolved since no sources exist to confirm the claims in the article.
I contact you because you handled the Copyright permission confirmation for this article. The main author has no account, but I have also notified an editor who did significant cleanup within the last month. Sorry to bother your retirement -- if you remove the prod I will not continue to seek deletion (though I may move the page for a disambig). JackSchmidt (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G4. Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted. This does not apply to content that has been moved to user space, undeleted via deletion review, deleted via proposed deletion, or to speedy deletions (although in that case, the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).
If the new article is basically the same text as before (not just the same topic), then you can just put a {{db-repost}} speedy deletion tag on the article. For instance as {{db-repost|Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_Dragon_Ball}}. If the article text is new, then you probably want to do the whole {{prod}}, {{afd1}} routine instead. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to personally thank you, MD, for leaving your retirement to come and participate in my recent RfB--I approve of your message . I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uniform Invoice, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hey Mailer, long time no see. I figured you were done for good until I fully read your Manifesto and, sadly, your RfB. I wanted to be there to support you but I was on a long wikibreak due to no internet connection. I just wanted to drop by as I seen your still allowing talk here, to tell you that although your not contributing, you're one of the few wikipedians I've come to admire and respect. I wish you the best in all your endeavors. And thanks again in nominating me for that RfA. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 8 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ahmad Said, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 11 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taipei Metro C301, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I think you should look at the original wording and what the main supporters are saying. They seem to think that it would work exactly as you don't want it to. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Muzha Line (TRTS)
On 1 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Muzha Line (TRTS), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Image copyright problem with Image:Boeing 747-8I Large.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Boeing 747-8I Large.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
I am writing to you because I came across a problem with creating a
wikipedia article.
Recently I wrote two articles: "ReaSoft Converter" and "PDF Printer
ReaSoft". Both of the articles have been speedy deleted, because
"they seem to be blatant advertising ". However, I tried to dispute
that fact with the editor on the articles talk pages, but he/she
didn't reply or whatever.
I believe that those two articles don't promote or advertise that
products, I reviewed them several times and excluded all the facts
that may be treated as advertising. They are both of informative
kind, not promotive.
However, while searching Wikipedia I saw several articles which may
seem akin to those that I tried to post. (this one, for example - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinePrint)
Please assist me with solving this problem.
Wow. Happy birthday, lucky new age. :) Hope you're enjoying yourself and having a memorable celebration. (won't ask you to save me a piece of cake, but would be great if you do!) Good luck with everything you're heading towards, on Wiki and in real life. Happy, happy birthday. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been quite a while you probably last heard from me. ;) I'm thinking of trying to salvage a near-condemned article and will need a favour from you. Odex's actions against file-sharing was previously shotdown by FAC and GAC due to various reasons and I don't know whether all the criticisms thrusted at it were legitimate, and if it's worth to salvage the article and be able to pass it through FAC again. I will need some further assistance per Tony1 to have a second or third opinion on the copyediting state of the article if it's going to stand any chance for FAC. (my grammar can be atrocious at times!). Apologies for the long rambling and g'day! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo18:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't see any inherent problem why it can't be FA if it is copyedited, so I guess it boils down to whether you think the toil is worth it. I suppose I do take FA more seriously than most. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Diablo. It's good to hear from you again.
I started to read the article, but I'm afraid that I gave up. I then skimread some more of it. Certain aspects of it seem very well done indeed. While Tony or someone like him may be able to improve the English here and there, the English seems excellent.
These don't seem to be the problem, which to me is that the whole thing doesn't seem encyclopedic. By that I don't mean that the subject shouldn't be covered; rather, I mean that the article looks to me like a chapter of a book -- an exceptionally scrupulously referenced book -- about BitTorrent litigation.
As I look around my shelves, I see a lot of books. Of course many are poorly referenced. But many others are scrupulously referenced, published by university presses, and all in all are about as good on their subjects as you could reasonably expect books to be. However, the great majority of these aren't (and don't attempt to be) encyclopedic. This article seems similar.
What are the important issues and events here? I think these are what we need, not an exhaustive blow-by-blow.
On the other hand all of this may simply be too far from my own areas of interest. Others may have a more favorable view (and I don't notice my objection arising among the pernickety GA comments). -- Hoary (talk) 07:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I was wondering how works the speedy deletion regulations? It seems to be very unfair for certain people. I've got a problem trying to upload an article concerning a contemporary artist, now his name is 'speedy deletion' in all the pages where his name appears. I'm not the artist and I just wanted to add more info about him. What can I do? I can fulfill the notability regulations about the person but the editor/admin who blocked and deleted seems just to don't care. What can I do? Thank you ! PhilC2008 (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)PhilC2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilC2008 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Adam Cote. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 04:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 6 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pinnacle@Duxton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Patri Friedman's page was deleted in 2006 due to being non-notable. However, I believe Patri now *is* notable. What changed between then and now? Patri kept developing his "Seastead" concept and got Peter Thiel to fund it (as a new entity called "The Seasteading Institute") with an initial half-million-dollar grant. Following that investment, an article in Wired kicked off a small storm of real-world publicity; Patri has since been interviewed on NPR, featured in many news articles online and off, and was even named one of the "Sexiest Geeks Alive". :-) In short, he's notable now. Not merely as the grandson of a Nobel Laureate or the son of a high-profile academic, but for his own ideas and accomplishments. He should have a page. Can we have the old one back as a starting point? Here are a few relevant recent links:
On 3 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Keikyū 2100 series, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Mailer diablo, it is with deep awareness of the responsibility conferred by your trust that I am honored to report that in part to your support, my request for adminship passed (87/14/6). I deeply value the trust you and the Wikipedia community have in me, and I will embark on a new segment of my Wikipedia career by putting my new tools to work to benefit the entire community. My best to you, Happyme22 (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xiaonanmen Station
On 16 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Xiaonanmen Station, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On 17 July, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item involving the article(s) Anwar Ibrahim, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently updated or created article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.
Gone all metapedian, have you? I came to the conclusion that that was the only sane course of action a long time ago. ;) --BanyanTree04:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3,000,000th Commons file
I'm surprised no one has congratulated you on this, but you uploaded the three-millionth article on the Commons! Congrats - CL — 04:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Back in November of 2007 you were involved in the deletion of my entry, Adam Christianson. I believe the issue was the question of my standing as a notable podcaster and the lack of citation or references. I would like to provide evidence to that fact in the hopes of having both these articles re-instated. I have been a pioneer in podcasting and my show is one of the first ever Mac/Apple podcasts with it's first episode airing in December of 2004. Since then the show has been named in USAToday as one of the top 10 podcasts, [1] and I personally have received an honorable mention as one of the top 25 most influential members of the Mac community, [2]. My show is also consistently in the iTunes top 25 for all technology based podcasts. In looking through many other Wikipedia entries I see there are less successful and less notable podcasts and podcasters represented. I know that is not necessarily relevant to my case, but I think the citations above and my reputation in the podcasting and Mac communities is enough to justify my notoriety for inclusion in Wikipedia. Thanks for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phylaxis (talk • contribs) 05:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Responding to an old comment...
About a month ago, you made a suggestion, which I was grateful for, but which I wasn't really ready for. Since then, I've done a fair bit of careful soul-searching, and I'm beginning to feel that I might be willing to take up your offer. Would you still be interested in this, a month after the event? Whatever your feelings on the matter, I'd be interested to know. Many thanks for your time, Gazimoff(mentor/review)21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly note to say that it's nice to see your input again. :) I know you mention on your pages that you're not as active as you were, but even so, I'm glad you're still around. Best wishes. Acalamari17:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I am thankful and appreciative that in general, the community feels that I am worthy of the trust it requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I hope that over the near future, you will become comfortable and satisfied with my understanding of the particulars and subtleties inherent in the RfA process, and that I may be able to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
