Jump to content

User talk:Starblind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JIMfoamy1 (talk | contribs) at 21:43, 9 January 2009 (→Deletion of Youtube Poop...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

deletion of Mixtape Messiah 4

I can see why you deleted mixtape messiah 4 because of sloppiness but im trying to fight the deletion by MBisanz who deleted this article, mixtape messiah 4 is part of a popular mixtape series in which mixtape messiah 1 is the best selling mixtape from texas and mixtape messiah 3 won best mixtape in the ozone awards so this series as a whole is notable and you need all parts of a series having articles.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Can you help delete UWA School of Music?

It's not noteable and I know how you like deleting things, thanks. UWA School of Music.--AresAndEnyo (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Racin and Rockin

Andy, I created the wiki for springport motor speedway and was in the process of creating the stub for Racin and Rockin when you deleted it. Your reason was no substantive information, but you deleted it after the first save before I even had a chance to complete all the edits or allow our racing community to complete their input. I'd appreciate it you'd give us more then 6 minutes (impressed by the speed at which you completed your review though.. bravo !) to make this page shine. Patrick. user:pmcnamara:pmcnamara

  • The article at time of deletion was nearly empty (just stuff like "put information here" and so forth) and offered no substantial content or context to support an article. A look at the included links suggested that even if the article were fleshed out more, it would not meet our present notability standards for events. It's possible there may be additional notability not immediately determinable, however, and if that is the case you may wish to try creating a draft version of the article in your usersapce with clear notabiliy supported by reliable sources. On the other hand, your mention of "our racing community" seems to suggest you aren't entirely neutral and may have a conflict of interest regarding this article and possibly the springport one as well. I suggest reviewing our WP:COI and WP:SPAM guidelines. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andy, I am attempting to assist a group of relative novices in the practice of having and maintaining a wiki. The process of gathering the fragmented information and consolidating into a single location is going to take longer then the 5 or 6 minutes your allowing. I used the Indy 500 event as a template for creating the article, as it is an event run at a track which in unique in and of itself like Racin and Rockin is, however, as an event with a 100 year history it contains a lot of information which this relevant to us and shouldn't be included. R&R is not operated by the track, nor is it a track event, but an event held at the track. "Our racing community" refers to the people who live in and around this area who are active in racing and to whom which you would expect to edit and/or maintain the wiki. People without any interest of or in will never see/view/maintain the stub. In regards to wp:coi which states "There are no firm criteria to determine whether a conflict of interest exists" and wp:spam, neither apply or are accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcnamara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you create the article in your userspace, time won't be a problem (within reason of course). I'm still a little confused on how you plan to provide reliable sources, as I couldn't find any articles on this event in Google News or Google Books. You'd think something with a "100 year history" would have made the news a couple times. I still can't figure out whether you have a COI or not, as you appear to be both confirming and denying it. Oh, and as an aside, the fact that you cut-and-pasted the Indy 500 article at this title does little to show me this is a good-faith attempt at creating an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Parature

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Parature. 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. Parature08 (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural Chicago

Pardon the interruption, but although this article seems to be undeleted (and I'd like to continue working on it per your direction), I can't find it during a search. Help please :) Many thanks, Neil/Necromancer66 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necromancer66 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loxsly deletion

"Article about a club or group that does not assert significance" is your reasoning for deletion. Where would I find Wikipedia's guidelines for asserting significance? The entry was re-written to provide notability under Wikipedia's criteria. What sort of material would be necessary to assert significance of and established popular musical act that's played hundreds of shows? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loxsly (talk • contribs) 18:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD TDVision

Hi, could you please revisit your comment. The article has changed since you made it and it merits to be kept now. 3dtech 05:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion: Liero

Because of the deletion/merge outcome of the article Liero Xtreme that you participated in, several related articles have been nominated for deletion on the same grounds. Please see the discussion.--Snoopydawg 08:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a few moments, please

These crackhead, overly ambitious editors are attempting to blow it to pieces. (er, no offense to any crackheads who may be reading this entry)

Thanks in advance, Ken

KenHouston 03:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


ECourier

Could you please unprotect the page so that others might have the opportunity to post an article pursuant to your comment closing the DRV?Jaybregman 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin-headed deer

Pumpkin-headed deer is now full of lots of 'citation needed' comments that someone put in. It now doesn't look very nice whilst it is quite an interesting article. You may want to have a look. SuzanneKn 15:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination)

You contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (second nomination). This was closed as speedy keep under criterion for speedy deletion G5 as a page created by a banned user, and its content deleted. You may or may not want to contribute to the new discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.pro-wrestling (2nd nomination). This message is being given to all users - except proven sockpuppets and those who have already appeared at the new Afd- who contributed in the original discussion. --Robdurbar 14:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of films with similar themes and release dates AfD

Hi, you've expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion of this article. I've recently suggested a compromise in hopes of improving the article while keeping both sides happy, and would appreciate if you could revisit the issue. Thanks. --Wafulz 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Thanks for contributing to my RfA! Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Whenever I need to communicate with other users as part of my work, I will try to give good strong answers, like I did to the RfA questions. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need anything or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)[reply]

Hoaxes such as this

Maybe a "db-joke" template should be created for these articles, to save everyone the bother of these AfD's? The guideline specifically says that anything "obviously ridiculous" isn't given the "protection" afforded to suspected hoaxes. yandman 10:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments accompanying your !vote. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 20:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, it "closed favorably", did it? That's about the modest understatement of the millenium: 225-to-2 is phenomenal, easily one of the top 5 or so RfA's ever, I'm sure! Congratulations! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... uh, Mouse Trap ...

  • I grinned when I read your Deletion Review comment "The little plastic dude who dives into the pan is an absolutely vital part of Mouse Trap, but that doesn't mean he gets an article." That analogy makes me want to invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. Just as in the case of certain video games, collectible card games, et cetera, there are people who think tons of excessive detail belongs in their favorite game's WP article and each bit merits its own breakout article, no matter how OR, no matter how NPOV. The people who are actually doing most of the work are good about this, but we get tons of drop-ins (often anons) who add fluff. For instance I'm a thirty-year veteran of the Diplomacy (game) hobby but I'm ashamed of how much OR is constantly in the Strategy section which should be a tenth as long and much less absolutist. I proposed dropping it and replacing it with a paragraph or two based on Richard Sharp's book and some DIPLOMACY WORLD featured articles, but nobody else has agreed. Barno 06:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting. I didn't know such a project existed, and I have joined up, although I don't know just how much I can participate as my wikitime is usually spent on deletion issues these days. Also, are you on BoardGameGeek as well? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I'm on BGG as "Mike_Barno" with an underscore. But I don't post very much there. Thanks for whatever bits of help you may end up giving to the boardgames articles. Barno 01:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read that...

I stopped a long time ago and I apolizied also if you read my last comment. So please don't message me about this issue because I am still cooling off from it and you need to read a little more carefully there if you want to accuse me. --Gndawydiak 02:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild beasts

You expressed in the Afd for this article that you thought that it should be deleted as there are know sources that the band have signed for domino records. The consensus was to keep the article. I have now removed this statement from the article as I can't find any myself. As I am the original author of the article, I feel it is only right to ask if you would like me to take it back to Afd, in response to the removal of this claim? Regards RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for asking, but I don't think it's necessary, as there seemed to be a decent Keep consensus anyway and the Domino Records claim was apparently not the deciding factor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 'driving license' image

I was involved in a discussion about colorful signatures, and yours was mentioned, so I came by to have a look. I happened to be distracted by your nice 'driving license' image on your user page, but I couldn't help noticing the death date! Is there a story behind that? Carcharoth 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nah, not really. The "death date" is March 15th, the Ides of March. I don't absolutely remember why I picked 2007 but it may have been because that's the year my both my driver's licence (from which I got the picture) and my American Express card (from which the microchip part was copied) were both supposed to expire. The Interlocutor's Licence itself was made as my ID image for DeviantArt in 2002. People have apparently seen a lot in it that isn't there, such as comparing the crosshairs-like thing in the background to the Zodiac killer symbol, but it's actually a centering mark from a printed cardboard box. Good to see the ol' Interlocutor's Licence apparently hasn't lost its power to intrigue. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Shame the prophecy was never fulfilled. Still, there's always this year! Andre Fluted (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donnie Davies

Just thought I'd let you know that I nominated the article for a deletion reversal which you can weigh in on here: WP:DRV Thanks! SquatGoblin 04:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of unusual deaths

May be coming up for AfD yet again; check the talk page. You commented on the last vote, so I thought I'd mention it, in case you're still interested. - DavidWBrooks 21:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Nintendo Nerd

Hi,

I recently came across the 'Angry Nintendo Nerd' (James Rolfe) series on YouTube, and after having a few good laughs, came to Wikipedia to get a bit of background on the creator. I see that the subject was deemed unnotable. I have had a look at the deletion discussions, and it seems everything was done fairly and reasonably back in July. However, the Angry Nintendo Nerd has grown in popularity and notoriety in recent months, and I have done a bit of research to back this up:

  • Mentioned in the Philadelphia City Paper (Nov 9 2006) [1]
  • Claims 1.5 Million hits to Cinemassacre.com, Mr. Rolfe's personal website, during October 2006[2]
  • Mr. Rolfe quit his job to focus on the Angry Nintendo Nerd project[3]
  • Over half a million subscribers on YouTube[4]
  • Interviewed on 411mania, apparently a website with a 10-year pedigree, Jan. 5th 2007 [5]
  • Interviewed on BlogCritics Magazine on Jan. 24th 2007, where Mr. Rolfe claims to have received 3 million hits during December [6]

I see that you protected the article from re-creation last month, so I thought I should come to you first to get your feedback on this matter. Thank you for your time. Vranak

    • Normally I'd advise to discuss it on Deletion Review, but the truth in this particular case is that this is on Deletion Review pretty regularly (sometimes under slightly different titles), and every time it's had unanimous consensus to keep it deleted. It was discussed three times in December, and as recently as late January there was a vote to keep the talk page deleted. I don't think the article is likely to be created again unless circumstances really change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question on your inclusion standards

Hi Starblind!

I read your User:Starblind/Inclusion subpage and found it very interesting. I have a question and wonder how your standard measures up against it. (I am not trying to say that your inclusion standards are wrong, but when reading criterion pages I always try drumming counterexamples- exceptions to prove the rule one might say... On AFD I have always found your opinions well thought out and reasonable.)

Let us say we come across an article on... let's say Nyakagomba, which is a "ward" in the Geita district of Mwanza Region in northern Tanzania. OK, what kind of reliable sources can we find about this place? Well we could go to the Tanzanian census and read that it is classified as a rural ward with a population of 12900 people and 1966 households. We can pull out a map where we will see that the ward lies west of the main town of Geita. (Maybe with a more detailed map we could say something about the roads which lead to Nyakagomba.) I am afraid that a pretty thorough round of searching on the net didn't reveal anything more than this. With the information we have, what we would wind up with is a stub article something along the lines of

Nyakagomba is a ward in the Geita district of the Mwanza Region in Tanzania. It is located west of the city of Mwanza. The ward has a population of 12900 people, and there are 1966 households.

Naturally, there may exist some more paper sources on the ward, but (for the sake of argument), let's assume that this was all that existed. Would Nyakagomba be a valid topic for an article even though we cannot make a non-stub article with reliable sources? On one hand, I believe that if someone tried creating a stub article like this, and someone else sent it to AFD, we would get a lot of "keep real places" votes, and that deleting a place of 10 000 people in Africa, while keeping a corresponding place in Europe would lead to a horrendous systematic bias. On the other hand, I can see great difficulties in expanding an article like this past the stub level with reliable sources, if it is at all possible.

How does your inclusion criterion handle this situation?

Let me just reiterate that I hold your AFD contributions in high regard, and I believe there is a lot which can be learned about Wikipedia and encyclopedic worthiness by reading your rationales on specific debates. Also, I think that your inclusion criterion holds valid for the vast majority of cases we see on AFD.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's an interesting case. Before examining it, I'd like to point out that I've often found that good sources aren't as hard to find as people think they are. As a result, things that might seem at first unverifiable or unexpandable often are if one digs far enough. My favourite example of this is Axehandle hound, which I nearly voted to delete but ended up saving after doing some plain ol' book-type research and finding a number of references (including Jorge Luis Borges among others) and rewriting the article around them. It seems to me that a place of 13,000 souls must get ink somewhere, even if the source isn't in English and isn't available online. The town where I live has maybe one tenth that population, but has its own weekly paper and is also covered by other larger newspapers in the surrounding area.
  • But I digress. Your scenario specifies that there aren't any additional sources to be found, so we must consider it within that framework. Given a real place whose existance is undisputed but nothing besides existance and population is verifiable, I'd say it would be an obvious candidate for merging into another article (in this case, apparently the Geita article). I've never claimed to be much of a mergist, but things that will never expand beyond a sentence or two are often merged, as well they should be). As an added bonus, merging can be done at editorial discretion, so there's no need to embark on the messy and possibly contentious AfD that might have resulted had anyone tried to delete it outright. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The save you made on Axehandle hound was great, and illustrated the best possible result an AFD discussion can produce. Cleaning up something deletable to something keepable is effectively creating a new article, and that is great!
    • Merging a stub on a real place is of course a reasonable option, although I generally will look for things even more stubby than that before I go ahead and merge (the "Nyakagombo is a ward in Geita." type of thing). In part this is because it is always possible that new sources pop up or are discovered, and for a person unfamiliar with Wikipedia, expanding a stub is easier than creating a new article from a redirect. In part because of a completely subjective and irrational feeling I have that a district of 10000 people "deserves" its own article no matter how thin that article would be. I remember redirecting some 200 substubs on uninhabited islands in the Maldives ("X is one of the uninhabited islands of Y atoll") to their atoll several months ago (one which had a bit more content was sent to AFD, the added content was deemed unverifiable so that article was redirected as well). I agree that in a great many cases, simply merging or redirecting stubs which can hardly be expanded is a good way to handle them, and I have often done so boldly and so far I have not seen any major complaints over it.
    • As always, it's great to chat and discuss things with you! Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep

What grounds did you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 as speedy keep?

  • There are no votes
  • Unquestionable vandalism it is not: 2007 is not a feature article, etc.
  • I am not banned
  • It is not policy or guideline

I see no grounds for it. Cburnett 17:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly, there's no reasonable chance that the article 2007 would be deleted. Secondly, based on the nomination text, the nomination appeared to exist to call attention to another AfD. Whether or not your intentions were good (and I'm making no statement on that either way) there's no reason to begin an editor-intensive process which has no chance of actually passing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's longstanding practice to close any editor-intensive process that has no reasonable chance to succeed, whether it be an AfD, RfA, DRV, etc. call it WP:SNOW or WP:IAR if you must. We probably have a point of agreement in that year articles would be better as a prose overview rather than a list of events, but trying to AfD the current article is not the way to bring about such a change. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy Zoeller

Nice catch... I don't know how the hell I missed that.--Isotope23 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katmandu (comic)

You wouldn't happen to have access to a copy of that issue of The Comics Journal you mentioned in the AfD debate, by any chance? I'm trying to hunt down sources for the article, but it's a rather difficult process. Shimeru 20:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a template to use in an AfD, when it has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Visual arts (please do list appropriate AfDs there). I think it should go under the article details and above the nom statement, as it is a formal notice and not part of the debate. It will sign your name with date stamp automatically. Please pass on to others.

Mnemonic: List of Visual arts-related Deletions.

Template to use:

{{subst:LVD}}

Result:


Tyrenius 00:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny

Funny you should mention this, but the movie isn't planned by immature children, adults actually. No, Madison Mott is using WRITING ON THE WALL for her first film. Website not being made yet. Story not completely finished. As such, Hollywood wanted to release a tiny bit of the rough storyline for viewers to get the kind of idea of what was going on. As such, it is noted that you made a very rude comment however funny.

Please refrain from doing so.

Writing On The Wall 18:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)talk to me[reply]

HHO gas

I have started a Deletion review you might be interested in. — Omegatron 14:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate X-Men (story arcs): Peer Review

Greetings! In January, you participated in the discussion for the 2nd deletion nomination of Ultimate X-Men (story arcs). After two months of rewriting, reorganizing, and referencing, the article is now undergoing a WikiProject Comics peer review. Your editorial opinion would be most welcome to help us improve the article to A-class status. Thanks for your time! - fmmarianicolon | Talk 06:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ides of March

Dude what's up what that death date on your userpage that reads that your dead today, I mean is there a story behind that?? --165.155.200.143 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PORNBIO reversion

Could you comment on the line you reverted on WP:PORNBIO in the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Notability (pornographic actors)#"do not on their own establish notability"? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Please give a third opinion at Talk:Chinaman. You may also want to read English language names for Chinese people beforehand. Uncle G 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review (and a barnstar!)

The Working Man's Barnstar
For all your work on Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, and for being one of my favourite admins here! SunStar Net talk 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to MarchFirst, currently under discussion at DRV, please see the new sources I have found relating to this article - this may be of interest to you! Hope I've helped! --SunStar Net talk 18:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, good to know somebody's noticed! Thanks too for looking into MarchFIRST... I think it's shaping up to be a very strongly referenced article... once the DRV is offical and final, of course. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs containing covert references to real musicians

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Briefsism on DRV

Can I get you to put it back? I know it's partly trolling, but if we just leave it up there, then we have process completed, instead of just ending up looking arbitrary. If it's IAR, then whatever, but I'd prefer just leaving it up there, honestly. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a chance. It isn't "partly trolling", it's blatantly obvious trolling, and not even funny or interesting trolling either (not that funny, interesting trolling has a place at DRV either, but that's beside the point). There's no reason to follow through with process becuase it isn't even a real DRV request, just trolling. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So not even for the sake of dotting i's and crossing t's, I can't get you to speedy close and list the dialogue anyhow? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because there's no DRV to close. There never was. It was not an attempt to restore an article, it was just blatant trolling/vandalism, part of a long stream of such that goes back at least a year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not meant as a smart-ass comment, but because I'm trying to learn: Is there somewhere an article that talks about these kinds of patterns of trolling, so I don't mistake a troll for an honest request for help? --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not absolutely clear on what you're asking here, because you said you knew this was trolling even before I told you it was. Anyway, for more information on dealing with trolls on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:What is a troll, Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore, and Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Pardon me, I should have been more clear. I knew it was trolling before you told me it was because I asked another editor after you made your second most recent comment. When I asked him for an opinion, he clued me into Briefsism's trolling nature, but the fact remains that I'm looking for a self-serve resource I can use to find this stuff out so I don't have to waste your or his time in the future, kind of like a Wikipedia version http://www.snopes.com/ so that new editors could look up what the common troll patterns on Wikipedia are. Wherein, for instance, I could look up Briefsism and find out that it's a repeating pattern troll tactic. I'll have a look at the links you already provided, but if that clarification helps and you can think of more resources, I'd love to be able to add them to my bookmarks. Thank you for your help so far and in advance. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 21:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • P.S. as for my first statement about "partly trolling", that was from reading the deletion log comments. Which, due to their short nature are not particularly full of context. From your deletion log comments, I knew it was trolling, but had no idea it was a systemic, traditional form of trolling until I asked the other editor. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 12:51, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • There is no list of repeat Wikipedia trolls or vandals, and for good reason: having such a list around would only encourage vandals to vandalise more so as to get themselves immortalised on the list. Besides, everyday obvious trolling/vandalism is removed whether it's part of a larger pattern or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess openings

Hi, I noticed that you commented some months back in this discussion that you considered the coverage of chess to be excessive. I've been trying to deal with the problem for some time myself, but I've made little headway, so I was wondering if you had any suggestions on how to deal with it, or if you'd just like to comment yourself. Thanks in advance. FrozenPurpleCube 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. I certainly still feel that way: Category:Chess openings has nearly 200 articles, and while I'm sure these articles are interesting to chess fans, the sheer number of them is excessive for a general-interest encyclopedia. I'm not realy sure how to go about cutting down on it all. Is there anyplace where discussion on this topic is happening currently? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's some discussion going on at the Chess Wikiproject's talk page, and I've also got a mediation request going on at Sicilian Defence to try to deal with some of my concerns there. FrozenPurpleCube 16:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

an/i comments

You commented on AN/I at this topic : "Legitimate link was reverted by a bot" in support of my removal of some information. Would you mind commenting on the dispute that removal has resulted in below on AN/I at "A request to restore a small part of deleted content" Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 15:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel fishing

You said: "Weak because the BBC radio source is pretty good, but as noted above that's not quite enough just by itself." Someone has since linked to a Google News search with quite some new sources, so you might want to reread and/or reconsider. - Mgm|(talk) 10:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Andrew, I have never had the pleasure of interacting with you before, but you kind words and support really got to me. My adminship has been restored and let me tell you, we've got to very careful with our passwords. You know, despite the headache that this caused me, it really made me feel good to know how many friends I have in Wikipedia. The support has been incredible. I can't let my friends here down. Tony the Marine 04:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


List of CE and SE games

You might be interested to know the article was deleted without an AfD tag, so is currently undergoing deletion review here [[7]] and might subsequently end up in another AfD.


List of Graffiti artists

Hello Starblind, I see that List of Graffiti artists has been deleted and protected. I understand why this is, though, the deletion of this article has left a large hole, with many red links now appearing. Could you perhaps, make the article into a re-direct to List of street artists? I feel that would be better. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PGNx Media

An editor has asked for a deletion review [8] of PGNx Media (see article here [9]). Since you participated in the discussion, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Arielguzman 01:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, looks like I missed it. Although I did vote keep on the AfD, I don't disagree with the DRV close, and it seems like the correct decision was made all around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eye (Eve's Plum Single) Deletion Thingy

Yes, the single had no physical release, but promos for it were sent to radio.

    • Thanks for letting me know. It looks like the AfD closed as no consensus, but the article says it's under a rewrite and being improved. That sounds like an outcome everybody can be happy with. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pumpkin-headed deer

A tag has been placed on Pumpkin-headed deer, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article does not assert notability. Sure, deers with pumpkins on their head might exist, but why is this notable? Also none of the cited examples are actually examples of deers with pumpkins!

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Stlemur 01:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind... a note

Don't remove any discussion of "Matrixism" or The game (game) from deletion review, or even briefs-related issues, it's not trolling.

I suspect these are single-purpose accounts, but it's better to assume good faith and let them discuss these even if there's a snowballs chance in hell they'll come back... assume good faith eh?? better to do that! --Bubsy67 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion wars seem far from over

Just check the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN --164.107.222.23 23:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eww, what a mess. Definitely a bad idea on TTN's part, but I wouldn't call this a resurrection of the deletion wars: those were all about factionalism, and I wouldn't call one admin making a big big mistake a "faction". That doesn't make it okay by any means, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


STARBLIND I SHOULDNT HAVE GOT ANGRY, LUKILY RAMBLING MAN TOLD ME WHAT TO DO, IM SO SORRY

Sorry I got mad and tried to edit your page, it's just that Max Macmillan is one of my two heroes (for full list see my page) and you deleted my page on him. (Lastofthewolves 17:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ricardo Aleman Deletion

  • Hi Andrew. As you know, after reading what some had to say about my page, I volunteered to have it deleted. Several things happened afterwards that made me rethink, and I spoke to sumnjim about it on his talk page (please read that first). He basically said that I really just need to support my page with independent sources, which I have. There have been two articles written about my America’s Got Talent performance in a major comedy ezine[10][11], and that 20 second clip has been played 1600 times in two days on YouTube[12], and was one of the top 100 most played comedy clips of the day yesterday. As I told sumnjim, I would like to get the page up (as long as it is agreed to be ok). I’m not here to break any rules, and I do appreciate your time, effort, and advice. And if there is any content on my page that crosses a line, I would certainly like to know so I can fix it. Raleman 16:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just found another article[13] Raleman 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • After an AFD in which you deleted this article per author request, the subject of the article has recreated the content. I'll give you two choices
  1. Delete it again per CSD G4, CSD A7 and WP:IAR in some combination.
  2. Reopen the AFD.

You may wish to consult the author. Either way, I trust your judgment. Shalom Hello 19:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since the article has been reposted with some attempt at referencing, I have reopened the AfD, although I still don't think the article has much of a chance, especially with a WP:COI behind it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


So i heard you like mudkips

Just out of curiosity, why was DeviantART relevant to the mudkips page debate? You brought it up as if it mattered, the meme didn't originate there and I can't understand why you used it as a benchmark for how widespread the meme was. And just FYI, I got 2550 hits on an exact phrase google search for "so i heard you like mudkips". Spelling it "herd" was the reason you got almost no hits on your search. Both pieces of evidence you cited were irrelevant to the debate. Hexrei 19:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pugalist Club hoax

Starblind, why do you keep reverting what is nothing more than a misunderstanding. It began by Corvix not understanding that Golden Book is the same thing as Libro d'Oro. Then it was posted for me to clarify sources which I am doing with ISBN numbers as requested. If you keep reverting, how can I fix. Thank you

Barbaro

Starblind, could you please fill me in about some Barbaro Family hoax and the recent edits at Talk:Fenwick High School (Chicago, Illinois), please? Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • As far as I can tell, it started when somebody AfDed an article called "The Pugalist Club" (sic), an article about a school secret society which had all the signs of a typical schoolkid hoax: no google hits either for it or its spelling-corrected name, extremely fishy-looking sources, and general wackiness: the article said club was started in 1991 but was "involved" in the Project Blue Book UFO study, which ended in the 1960s, indeed before the group's supposed founder V Barbaro was even born.
  • Voters on the AfD found that the "Pugalist Club" article was only one of a group of similar interconnected hoax articles, including another secret society and adding information about V Barbaro to various articles (there were also two articles on V Barbaro himself which were speedied shortly after creation months ago). All the above are the work of a single editor, User:Tiki-two, who also edits with a variety of IPs. When this was revealed on the AfD, Tiki-two responded with increasingly-bizarre claims (being a professional historian, being a Ferarri car designer, being the prince of Transylvania, being connected to NASA, etc.) and eventually melted down into a string of curses and attacks, sounding far more like a frustrated teenager humiliated that their hoax had been found out than a learned historian/designer/prince/UFO-guy.
  • Interestingly enough, there is also another IP who is claiming that it's all a hoax, at one point suggesting that the whole thing was dreamed up to attach imagined value to someone's eBay purchases, which for all we know might be the case, although based on the evidence so far it sounds far more like an average kid trying to sound cool and mysterious than an eBay fraud.
  • In any case, I'd suggest removing/reverting the related material from additional articles, if you come across any. It looks like the AfD consensus is pretty clear, and once that is deleted Tiki-two and his buddy will lose interest and move on. For now if Tiki-two and the IP are going to duke it out, so be it, but better that it happens at the AfD than across four different articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the Fenwick article, and am I to view any contributions from 65.54.98.xxx with suspicion? I can understand the Barbaro contributions as being suspect, but is this game so deep that 65.54.98.xxx would go to the trouble with all those other non-Barbaro edits?
Jim Dunning | talk 14:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since 65.54 announced himself as "I am a representative of the Barbaro family for American and European relations", I'd consider their claims highly suspect. Note that prior contributions from the same IP are not necessarily from the same actual person. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I found quite a few Google hits for the Barbaro family, that's why the whole Barbaro family didn't get listed for deletion.  :) I do wonder what the signifcance is of the EBay sale, though. That seems to be taking it into another whole level. Corvus cornix 18:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have the answer —
There's a chance all of this may be coming to an end. This was just posted on the Fenwick Talk page. Unless it's just perpetuating the hoax to another level, it sounds like a parent trying to clean up his/her kid's mess. The couple IP addresses used by the hoaxer (and probably Tiki) are the same ones used by what appeared to be a serious (and very persistent) contributor to the Fenwick article over the past month. I'm inclined to believe her/him. There may have been some fraudulent or questionable activity on eBay involved, since the parent(?) brought it up as well.
By the way, the first mention of "Vitus Barbaro" on the Fenwick page (by 4.142.117.18) was on May 29, 2007, one day after all the Tiki, 4.142.xxx.xxx and 65.54.xxx.xxx activity started on the Barbaro family page. It's been an interesting distraction.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name in vain: I noticed that, too. I'm glad to see someone thinks I'm such a force in the WP community. At least they don't seem to know how to link to (or want to appear to know how to link to) my userpage. Maybe I'll do some extra duty reverting them to clear my dubious name.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starblind, why do uou keep deleteing talk page information. I have explined clearly. What is the problem? Please talk. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.155.41 (talk • contribs).

Thank you Andrew for responding. I think you are still confused about what has happened and what the hoax actually was. Mr. Dunning has clarity and he is the one that asked me to help restore and delete certain personal information. Dunning is the one that wrote :" P.S. Please also notify all others about the situation) This is what happened: Mr. Barbaro is a very busy man and has a young college kid as an assistant who often handels small things like picking up mail or basic computer work. One of his jobs here at the office is to handle Mr. Barbaro's ebay account. When Vitus bids on something, it is this kids job to mail out payments and pick up packages and other little things. This kid's hoax was to use true Barbaro information into creating a fake secret society. Then at some point someone caught that he used one of Mr. Barbaros purchased as "evidence" for the existence of this fake society which got him busted, which in turn got the Barbaro family page flagged. now, he paniced and came to mr. Barbaro and said, "Oh my god there is some hoax abut the Barbaro family in Wikipedia" To try to cover up, and Mr. Barbaro asked me, his personal assistant, to get on it to fix it. This punk has since been fired, and we knew it was him because when we logged onto the office computer and saw that the account he set up was tiki-two he was busted. Please stop posting blocks or deleting my work. Thank you

P.S. please respond back to this talk page. I don't have an account.

Mr. Dunning did not say, "P.S. Please also notify all others about the situation", nor ask you to "help restore and delete certain personal information." Please stop lying about me. I do have an account and can see everything you do and say. So let me speak for myself: Starblind, you are free to revert away per WP guidelines.
Jim Dunning | talk 18:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Who wrote that on Fenwick's talk page. Because I resonded right after Thank you and continued on... I'm not liar. Was that you or someone else? Please explain! Grace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.154.26 (talk • contribs).
Nobody told you to delete other people's talk-page comments. You did that yourself. Nowhere does he (or anyone else) say that you should mess with other people's talk page comments, nor would be. Everything you do on Wikipedia is logged (whether you're signed in to an account or not) and can be read and accessed later, so trying to cover up messages you don't like is pointless, as they'll remain in the page's history anyway and trying to cover them up if anything brings them under additional scrutiny. So don't bother, you're wasting your time.
Let's set that aside for now. The bottom line here is that everything you've said about this "Vitus Barbaro", the prince of America/Italian nobleman/Prince of Transylvania/cool-car designer/Hollywood producer/racehorce enthusiast/art historian/mysterious-society starter/UFO-type guy--is completely and utterly unverifiable. You have not proved that such an individual even exists, much less that his rather, uh, fanciful range of activities are accurate. The name itself appears nowhere at all on the web, nor any indexed books or magazines anywhere. It may be somebody's personal joke, it may be a hoax, it may be a fanfiction character, it may be an ebay scam, who knows? But none of that matters because it's utterly unverifiable by wikipedia's standards.
The bottom line is this: Think carefully before you answer. Can you produce reliable sources to verify your biography of Vitus Barbaro? If you can, great. If you can't, then the information will NOT be inserted into Wikipedia under any circumstances until such reliable sources do exist, and no amount of begging, pleading, or switching IPs is going to change that. I await your answer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andrew. I thought I'd register my opinion on Barbaro family here rather than the article's talk page, since that's pretty much of a mess at the moment. I can live with the lead paragraph you added, though it could do with some restructuring and rewording. (It's practically impossible that the family was known as "Barbaro" in the fourth century, for example. And I'd like to see a source for the descent of the family from the Julii.) I think, however, that the other paragraphs—even those I left in the article when I did my deep revert—should be deleted and the information in them readded only as it can be referenced with clear inline citations or footnotes. There's just too much there that's dubious, such as the supposed "battle cry"/motto "Vitus Barbarus," which is, emphatically, not Latin for "I shun the uncivilized" (that would be "Vito barbarum" or perhaps "Vito barbaros"). Deor 03:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Back

I'm Back--Starblindie 12:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely (username, trolling). Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, nabbed in th first 3 minutes. Good work indeed! :) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caledonian-Record

Greetings, I fairly confident you know Wiki policy pretty well, and I was wondering if you could go to this Afd and provide any input possibly? Thanks --sumnjim talk with me·changes 14:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV Charlotte Bisman

Could you look again please? I guess I wrote so much about the BLP stuff that you missed that the amount of coverage the girl has gotten is highly impressive. There were 3 different external references given in the deleted article, if you looked at that, even if you didn't either go to the website or click the Google link I wrote about in the DRV; speedy deletion for lack of notability is more questionable than speedy deletion for BLP. She's "the public face" of the NZ meningicoccal vaccination campaign, and she's gotten continuous coverage for all 3 years of her life. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infrangible Seal of Approval

This user is OK!
You are hereby awarded the Infrangible seal of approval for outstanding contributions and overall coolness. ~ Infrangible 17:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You voted to keep the USM story Arcs but now its back up for deletion will you help me keep it on here?BlueShrek 00:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom

Discuss the ED mess with the Arbitration Committee, or I will write a slanderous article about you on ED. Duarm3300 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Deletion of Dryve article

Hello, it appears you were involved in the deletion of the article on the band 'Dryve'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dryve_%28second_nomination%29

I was a founding member of this band and would occasionally add current information to the page. It seems the two main points of contention were first, the involvement of a banned wikiuser named Jason Gastrich, and second, is the article's information is unverifiable. I would like to request the article be reinstated on the following grounds-

I can fully verify any and all of the information in the article.

There is sufficient verifiable information to meet the WP/music requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.

As far as this Jason Gastrich character goes, I do vaguely remember him frequenting the Dryve performances in San Diego and I do believe he briefly played with former Dryve bass player Michael Pratschner after Dryve had disbanded. If he in fact did start the page as one admin claimed, his personal character deficits do not negate the validity of the subject matter of which I looked over quite a bit to insure it's accuracy.

Please contact me if you would like more information.

Keith Andrew Kickstar1@hotmail.com--Kickstar1 03:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but what is DRV? Why would be necessary to delete it form the list of bands here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Minute_Walk And how would it be considered a COI if the information is purely factual and I am not saying things like, "They were the greatest band since the Beatles?"--Kickstar1 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ED DRV close

I'm confused by your close of the most recent DRV, the ArbCom ruling did not prohibit an article on the subject as far as I can tell. I don't think there is enough to have an article since it was only mentioned briefly in an article about Wikipedia in the NYT Magazine, but I don't see your reason for closing early as at all justified. Further explanation would be appreciated. JoshuaZ 14:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in one major respect- since we are supposed to generally use secondary sources if we can't write an article about a website without linking to the website then we shouldn't have an article on the topic. So if it is in fact sufficiently notable then it should be easy to write an article without triggering the ArbCom issues. In any event, I'm not convinced that ArbCom had any intention of banning an article on the subject since in general ArbCom does not make content decisions and doesn't even have real authority to do so. I'm aware that the DRVer in question is a troll, as you may note I in fact blocked him simultaneously with leaving the note on your talk page. JoshuaZ 15:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too am confused. I have re-read the decision, and I cannot find where it says that an article about that website is prohibited. Can you post the exact quotation? I do see where it says that links to it are prohibited, but that is another question. DGG (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out JoshuaZ's talk page for a more detailed explanation of my reasoning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fudgie_Frottage article

Please revisit the AfD page [[14]] and article to see if your vote might change. Benjiboi 22:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

My RFA
User:TenPoundHammer and his romp of Wikipedia-editing otters thank you for participating in Hammer's failed request for adminship, and for the helpful tips given to Hammer for his and his otters' next run at gaining the key. Also, Hammer has talked to the otters, and from now on they promise not to leave fish guts and clamshells on the Articles for Deletion pages anymore. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 16:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reconsideration: Re-Add Anthony Chidiac

Hi There Andrew. I have noted that you first commented for the deletion of article on Anthony Chidiac wayyy back when it was a promotional piece. The text was userfied into my profile - User:T3Smile/Anthony_Chidiac and I would kindly request it being reviewed and replaced back into Anthony Chidiac. I'm currently in receipt of nearly all the aspects of this document to be cited on all counts, and would kindly ask for your support of its addition. I'm just at the point of spending an inordinate amount of time on this project and was wondering whether it was all worth putting the finishing touches to it. Its really going to be a very cool "multimedia friendly" article and I have another hour or mores worth of material of this guys work that takes days to add. Its also going to be stamped a WikiPedia Australia project. Could you give this newbie chick a break?  :) Ta --T3Smile 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would require a DRV, and based on the bad behaviour during the AfD I'd say it wouldn't have a chance in hell. Pretending to be a different person isn't doing you any favours either. We know it's you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of environmental protection and restoration topics

If you did not like List of environmental protection and restoration topics (which you thankfully requested for deletion here) then what do you think of List of environment topics (discussed here). -- Alan Liefting 13:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate Rain

Hey, just so you know, the article was recreated with new sources and completely re-written by myself, thereby not fitting CSD G4. I also raised the issue here to no objections. I'd like you to reconsider. Thanks. :-) IronGargoyle 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You posted a note on ANI and waited a mere 5 hours, during which time apparently nobody noticed. Like I said, take it to DRV if you must, but without strong additional notability since the last AfD and DRV (again, a mere week or so ago) this has no chance whatsoever of coming back. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was actually 7 hours, and I thought, in good faith, that this was enough time on a busy noticeboard like WP:AN (a number of other threads were discussed after I posted mine). Was this an error in my judgment? Maybe. But I would also like to point out that you have deleted this article twice before, and you had one of the most stridently-worded keep deleted comments on the last DRV of your action (I would like to point out that this deletion and your comment was perfectly justified at the time IMO). I'm just politely suggesting that you may have not been the most objective person to speedily delete the article as a repost right now. Best, IronGargoyle 17:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You will probably also notice this on WP:AN, but I've opened a deletion review of Chocolate Rain. Since you speedy-deleted it, I thought I would give you a heads up. Best, IronGargoyle 22:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a pretty likely overturn of your G4, perhaps you can save IronGargoyle some time and just reverse it yourself? Until(1 == 2) 13:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop deleting Chocolate Rain. Tay Zonday played it live on NBC last night. Green Day and John Mayer have covered the song. When it was decided to delete the article, it was simply because he hadn't appeared in mainsteam media yet, which isn't the case anymore. 64.40.46.175 17:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, that's just lovely, a DRV opened and closed before I ever got a chance to comment on it. Wouldn't have hurt to let it run at least a full 24 hours at least. In any case, although I still disapprove of how this was handled, I don't intend to make an issue of it now that consensus exists. Back to working on the encyclopedia... Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Corncraft 30026 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Good call! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jumpswing (2nd nomination)

Since you commented on the first AfD for Jumpswing, I would like to invite you to the 2nd nomination. panda 14:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC) Wow seriously... fuck you guys (except for Jreferee)... What the hell does it take to get into Wikipedia??? This is complete and utter bullshit and goes against EVERYTHING that the internet stands for which is that the little guys can compete with the bigger guys. So how much fucking famous do you have to be? A cover story for a local area newspaper isn't enough??? It goes out to over 160,000 readers in Ohio! Bullshit I say. This just goes to prove that people with money can get notability. I specifically waited to till this article to repost this because I felt after you get a hometown article that you stand for something. But I guess a bunch of nerdy admins who have nothing better to do with their time have to be biased and homophobic. And why the hell does the source have to be independant? Do you think people who are in wikipedia don't edit their own entries (cough Adam Curry cough). Seriously fuck you, and fuck wikipedia. I will never list this in wikipedia and I will put every effort into bringing down and boycotting wikipedia. Fuck off.[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_14" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironhide1975 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JkDefrag AfD

Hi, I was just wondering what expertise you have in the field of Windows Optimisation software to know whether the JkDefrag page is notable software or not? Just curious RitaSkeeter 20:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review review

Might I ask you to see what's been written (and linked from) here after you left your "yes, keep deleted" vote, and to reconsider it? Thanks for considering reconsidering, anyway. -- Hoary 10:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The now-traditional RFA thank-spam

Click there to open your card! → → →

Thanks for a good laugh

"While playtesting 'Hoity Toity', Überplay's design team accidentally discovered a cure for Cancer." AFD is usually pretty grim, but that is a great line. Quale 09:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario RPG lists

Currently, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars has two lists pertaining to it (List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). User:TTN decided it would be best to merge the lists into the main article and split Smithy Gang into those articles. I recently merged Smithy Gang into the list of chatacters by removing the non-notable characters, and I have asserted that a cameo section in the list of characters is valid, per Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia that uses Alex Trebek#Cameos as a good example. I have suggested that we rename the articles per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves to something along the lines of Characters of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) just like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VI or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII). I believe if these articles are to evolve beyond a non-notable list, they should be renamed. For example, List of Final Fantasy VII locations was merged into Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), because a World article is notable, but a simple list of locations is not. That is why there are other secions of the article to make it a World article. It simply has not been renamed yet.

TTN believes the citations in the development and reception sections of the list of locations, books and magazines, are trivial sources. When I added that the 3D perspective of the game is reminicent of Equinox to the main article, TTN removed it since my souce was "the opinions of the Nintendo Power player's guide writers". Although it was actually Nintendo Power magazine, I do believe a magazine is a reliable source, and I gave a page from Next Generation Magazine which also said the same thing. In addition, I was surprized that TTN said that it was from the players guide, since he claims to own the players guide for the game. He has not verified this, since I asked him for citations in May, "Could you look in the back of the Player's Guide and tell me what “types” of … Magic? I forgot what they call it in the game … well, anyways, what types of Special Attack or whatever it is (actually, could you find out what it's called?) there are? I remember some vaguely when I owned the guide like “Fire”, “Jump”, “Electricity?”, etc. Could you provide a citation, like the page number with a quote in context?" TTN replied that he was going to "get to it" (User talk:TTN/Archive 5#List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). TTN claims the player's guide is "at the bottom of a box that's behind at least five others in a cramped space". Seeing that TTN did not recognize that the page was not from the player's guide when I provided a scan of the page in question from Nintendo Power shocked me. However, I have continued to assume good faith by not questioning TTN's honesty.

Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, I have offered five different reasonable, temporary compromises that might integrate my idea with TTN's.

  1. Go over the list of characters so we can delete non–notable characters
  2. Rename the articles by following the steps at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves.
  3. Cut down the geography section list of locations by cutting it into the regional maps the adventures use when traveling from one to another. I can get pictures and write the fair use rationals, and someone can cut down the text that has no citation and does not allude to other media.
  4. Write the concept and creation and reception sections for the list of characters
  5. Write the concept and creation section for the main article

TTN rejected my compromise because it still keeps the articles. I agreed I would consider a redirect, but Wikipedia:Article size does not allow that, since the list of locations is currently 82 KB long. Instead, I agreed to help cut down the geography section that is the bulk of the article, but TTN rejected that as well because TTN states, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." and "get past this "having sources automatically means that this information is good" mentality." TTN states, "I don't think they have or will ever assert notability." I have replied with, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if you don't think the articles will ever assert notability, we cannot yet know this, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it.

Would you please take a look at Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and give us your thoughts? Taric25 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbaro family

I was in the middle of a 3RR report on this when I saw you protected it. Should I bother with the report? Into The Fray T/C 13:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er. No, I don't think I will. :D Into The Fray T/C 13:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a supermodel?

Nice photograph! By the way, Pardus (game) is back up for deletion and I'm bewildered as to why people are voting keep (and speedy keep even) on something that has no sources. Your similarly colored friend, Burntsauce 17:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks, although it might be a bit early to apply the "super" in front of "model", but there's nothing wrong with a bit of optimism. I agree about Pardus: whenever I see an article that tries to lean on a student newspaper for sourcing, that's a HUGE red flag in my book. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Belldandy

Hi, I'd welcome any other option on how to deal with this issue. I am trying very hard for a solution but people who mass redirectify or work to that end indirectly are avoiding all avenues of this general problematic behaviour. Example: [15]. ANI isn't very effective in addressing the problem so I tried an AFD as a test case. I am uncertain what to do to get this addressed. Sine I am not allowed to use the test case. How in your view should I deal with the issue? -- Cat chi? 15:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

on POINT

Comments made by nom during the discussion (such as "I am allowed to make nominations contradicting my personal views on any topic and this isn't the first time I have done so") strongly suggest the whole thing was, and continues to be, a WP:POINT violation. Sorry, but no. That's not what WP:POINT says, that's not what WP:POINT means, and there is NO policy violation and no disruption (a key element of WP:POINT) in making a nomination that is in line with a principle you do not personally like. —Random832 17:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chris erskine

Asked some other admins, but I don't know how to nominate Chris Erskine for deletion properly because it is the 2nd AfD... do you know someone who can help do this? cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Student Youth Network

Hi, article has been overhauled and you may want to revisit your comments on the deletion review page. Benjiboi 22:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Furry Wikipedians DRV

"I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument." Any chance you could expand on that at [16]? After checking other deletions, it appears there's been several like that, with the closing admin disagreeing with the arguments made by one side, and throwing consensus out the window... Thanks, Bushytails 03:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Yuniti article

I'm not sure I understand your comment on the deletion review page for Yuniti - yes I listed all the sources (New Sources, Greater Notability. Sources of notability), including the ones used in the original article and the SNL source used in the last deletion review.

But how is the bizreport news article the same one if it was published after the last deletion review?

I was informed that more articles like the SNL article would imply notability to be on wikipedia. What is the exact number of articles a subject requires to be notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia? I think a number needs to be posted somewhere, as I am very confused. -Marquinho 14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Thanks for the comments at deletion review: I wasn't sure about whether Darius was notable or not, but I decided that rather than re-creating the article, I thought why not take it to a wider forum for discussion. I've left my comment at the review which may be of interest to some. --Solumeiras talk 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kersal Massive DR

Hi. You commented on the Kersal Massive deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 1#Kersal Massive). As the version of the article that was deleted had been heavily vandalised with patent nonsense and stuff made up in school (see User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal for the original page at deletion), and hence did not have a fair deletion discussion, I've created a new, reliably sourced, version which explicitly states notability at User:Smurrayinchester/Kersal2. Many thanks, Laïka 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_November_3 Zeitgeist (video)

Hi, I responded to your comment. Pdelongchamp 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist (video)

Smile

SJP:Happy Verterans Day! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

The state of wikipedia...

It's nice to know that Wikipedia has useful articles such as this:

Katherine_Lester

Yet for users wanting a list of all notable social networking sites out there, big or small, that they're limited to this incomplete list:

List_of_social_networking_websites

When yuniti is, if nothing else, professionally written to sound and look like an encyclopedic record, and the site is different enough to be gaining an underground following and to have had various articles.

Just shocked, appalled, and ashamed and what's considered "encyclopedic". And if you're not... then more power to you.

Additionally, I didn't address this at the time because I saw no point as it seemed you had your mind set on the yuniti article being deleted more out of stubornness than any logic. But your statement about "not having cracked the top 100,000 on alexa" is incorrect. View the history for the last 1 year, and you'll see it actually hit < #74,000 back in January. -Marquinho (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott5114's RFA

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my recent RFA nomination. I have withdrawn the nom early at 17/13/3. I am presently going to undergo admin coaching in preparation for a second candidacy somewhere down the line. I hope to see your potential support in the future. Regards, —Scott5114↗ 07:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Would it make any difference to your opinion of me if I were to point out that my user-page blurb hasn't been seriously altered since October 2006? My style has changed quite a bit since then. (N.B. I've also asked the same of User:JodyB)Michael Sanders 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Ken Macklin

An editor has nominated Ken Macklin, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Macklin and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion and help

Dear Starblind, your are obviously a wiki master beyond any other I have seen thus far. I would like to ask you for your opinion and help. Gyrofrog who is also an Admin has a history of Stalking me. Now he is placing back false information on the Nur Ali Elahi page that is completely incorrect with bogus citations that are obviously nonsensical. I feel he is abusing his powers as an admin to bull every move I make for the past year.

If you look at my history, you will immediately notice that I have made over a 1000 constructive edits and created many new topics of great interest with factual citations. I am a New York Times best selling author (you can’t tell by my grammatical skills, that’s why Random House got me the best editor they have, lol). The information is littered with gibberish. I explain why the information is false on the talk page. The Ostad Elahi Foundation is a VERY dangerous cult and has been accused of many crimes in France. Thank you for your time!--Octavian history (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User 62.65.68.182 is badly vandalizing the Geronimo page and many others. Is there anyway to stop this guy? Thanks--Octavian history (talk) 12:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that my response here will only lead to further accusations of stalking. But I wonder what he means about "the past year," as the account was only created a couple of months ago (I have already gone on record with my belief that there are multiple accounts involved). As for the Nur Ali Elahi article, I had left comments on that talk page. Not sure what my actual editing there has to do with admin powers. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionist versus Inclusionist Controversy

I would ask that you reconsider your position on the AfD in question. The article is about the fact that a controversy exists, and has been observed in the media. If you haven't reviewed the references in the article, I humbly ask that you do so--as I believe you'll find that this is now a social phenomena that has become well-known outside of Wikipedia itself. It isn't appropriate for an article on criticism, because this article is about the fact of a controversy (not a synthesis of critical opinions) nor is it appropriate for a userspace essay. Tarinth (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless 'votes'

Please don't add votes that agree with points that have been invalidated, it's just a waste of time. If you believe the point is still valid, then address those concerns.--Moodkips (talk) 12:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Randy Richards Article

The article [17] contained nearly 20 citations, and at least 2 meaningful secondary sources WITH independent verification for notability. What more could anyone want? Malakai Joe (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retarded Animal Babies deletion

Thank you for your criticisms. I am shortening the article considerably. There is some difficulty with obtaining more citations--Mr. Lovelace has gotten some publicity for RAB in the past 5 years, but failed to save clippings or other info, so I'm working under a disadvantage here. Any suggestions you can offer to improve the article would be greatly appreciated. Is there anything I can do to assist you? Eric Barbour (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ned's Declassified Fairly Survivial (sic) Guide

Mucho grassy ass for blocking User:PlasmaGard, sock or not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burke and Hare: The Musical

Please fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burke and Hare: The Musical? Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loren Chasse and comment, if you care to. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Wilkins

Since you deleted John Wilkins (American football), you might also delete Gordon Wood, G.A. Moore, and Paul Tyson. And why not continue with Blair Cherry, Gil Bartosh, and Art Briles? And further, you might think about removing John Heisman, Amos Alonzo Stagg, and Vince Lombardi. Remove them all! --Bender235 (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the suggestions, but I looked at a few of them and they don't appear to be deletable, much less speediable. Vince Lombardi, for example, is a very famous NFL coach. Please keep in mind that if you see something you think should be deleted, you don't have to ask an admin to do it, just tag the page or take it to AfD. Thanks again! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. My point was that John Wilkins actually is notable. A four-time state finalist, the most successful coach at one of the most storied programs in high school football (ever heard of Friday Night Lights?), a Texas HS Hall of Honor member, and the winningest coach in all of Texas HS football — you telling me that person “doesn't indicate importance/significance”? --Bender235 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were suggesting other supposedly similar articles for deletion. Anyway, the general precedent for inclusion of athletes and coaches is a professional league or top-level college league, and every high-school athlete/team/coach I've ever seen brought to AfD has been deleted pretty much unanimously. However, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt if you're willing to improve the article. I'll restore it to your userspace (User:Bender235/John Wilkins (American football)) if you'd like to work on it, but I wouldn't suggest putting it back into article space in anything resembling its former state or somebody will probably delete it within minutes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider adding a comment here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Notability of High School Football Coaches --Bender235 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Sequential Art AfD - New sources

Just going around to all those that voted delete for lack of notability/sources early on in the debate, new sources were recently posted and you may wish to review them to see if the article is now up to your standards. Superslash (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Legge's Sideshow Cinema

Andrew, I wanted to let you know that Michael Legge's Sideshow Cinema is up for deletion. Plank (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Regarding that AfD, I'd like it to be on the record that I'm not defending the article. I'm not familiar with comics, so I'm not sure if it should be considered a blatant hoax (thus constituting vandalism) or not. It's more of a question of semantics, and either way though, I support deleting it. Hope that clears things up.--TBC!?! 17:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per deletion of my page

I started creating a page about the site Gaywatch.com and I am trying to follow directions on wikipedia by first providing references and then building up the article. No more then a few minutes after I clicked save I found the page was deleted. I understand the reason but whats a new wiki user to do? I didn't have time to do anything!

Thanks Thor26 (talk) 19:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying

Again, I'm not trying to defend an article that obviously should be deleted. I never wanted to give you that impression. Just saying that, at first glance, I didn't consider it a "blatant" hoax, which I typically associate with patent nonsense. I still strongly support deleting it. It's only a mere semantics issue and I'm not trying to debate with you or anything. Although I did find your response on my talk a bit biting and maybe not as civil as you might have intended, hopefully we can resolve this little kerfluffle between us.--TBC!?! 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Floor is Lava!

If you would've given me ten minutes, I was about to point out that the Facebook group in question currently has 5,545 members. This game has a following that is increasing exponentially. Also, this wasn't just some personal article - my name was mentioned nowhere in the article, and I was simply trying to provide a means by which people who are not on Facebook could learn about the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LexykXV (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LexykXV (talk • contribs) 15:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page

Look, you deleted an article about "original gangsters" because it "doesn't indicate importance" (tagged by Olaf Davis)... I can't see how a gang that is rapidly growing in Sweden as well as in Holland, Germany and Norway does not significe importance. Why does it not? Just because you or someone else has never heard of it does not mean it is of no importance. Right? (SebastianGS (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]


Typo redirect How do you make a page?

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on How do you make a page?, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because How do you make a page? is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (CSD R3).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting How do you make a page?, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block

Hi Starblind, per your indef block of contributions, I was wondering if you had a chance to see my decline earlier (link)? The indef is overkill, I think. R. Baley (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see a brand-new account with 10 edits, every single one of which is vandalism and/or nonsense, and no indication that if unblocked their future contributions would be any better. User is very clearly not here to constrctively help us build an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Mother is a Tractor : Deletion

Hi Andrew. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion but just wanted to add some notes for you.

  • I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking Qworty's link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
  • It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
  • Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
  • It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
  • This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
  • As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
  • Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. Qworty obviously doesn't like POD/"Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and has deleted all other references without waiting for judgement here, so one must presume deletion a fait accompli

Given the last point I have therefore I saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Good evening and good luck. —Preceding comment added by Nklar (talk • contribs) 15:46, 01 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Muxtape

Concerning the speedy deletion of Muxtape, I feel that it was unjustified. The reason you gave was that it is "web content" and that it "doesn't indicate importance/significance", essentially, a claim of non-notability. However, the article did assert notability, in the number of claimed users (between 82 and 128 million). Also, the fact that it was extensively covered by both NPR and WIRED automatically lends it some notability. A7 is intended for obviously non-notable people or web content, like someone's personal website or blog, not for websites with millions of users and mainstream media coverage. For this reason, I request that the article be restored. If you still feel that it should be deleted, I suggest that AfD would be the appropriate venue. -kotra (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we must agree to disagree on whether this is a notable website or not. 128 million users? Nonsense. Gaia Online, arguable the largest community site in the world, has one-tenth that. For comparison's sake, World of Warcraft has about 10 million users. However, I have undeleted the article for now and will see whether it progresses and improves. If left as-is, it's pretty much inevitable that it will be deleted sooner or later. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the claim of between the population of Germany and Japan is a bit ludicrous. I've qualified the statement with "ostensibly" which is in the actual quote. However, Wikipedia's policy is verifiability, not truth, and the claim is verifiable (though still portrayed as just a claim). Anyway, even if the actual number of users is only a tenth of that, I would still consider it notable. There will almost certainly be more references on this subject as time goes on, though there's no need for me to consult my crystal ball. I feel that the article asserts sufficient notability already (though I guess we disagree there), and it can only improve. Anyway, thanks for reinstating it. We'll see how it goes. -kotra (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dougie Fresh

Obviously, you've never heard of Doug E. Fresh. I'd accuse you of being too young, but you're my wife's age. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, the article text was "More information will be availiable on the producer/songwriter/artist at a later time!" and that's all. In any case, no objection to the redirect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anima Project Deletion

Hello Starblind. I notice that you speedily deleted the article I was creating on "The Anima Project", citing code A7 (in this case the issue being "An article about web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". I believe that this article should be re-instated as I can prove novelty and significance. To quickly some up, there are two major reasons why the Anima Project is significant:

1) It is the only parapsychological study to ever be conducted over the internet and open to the public for participation.

2) It is the only parapsychological study to incorporate advanced statistical methods (goodness of fit analysis, runs analysis etc), that will precisely indicate whether the phenomena exist. All the pre-existing mathematical studies and meta-analysis use very naive and simplistic statistics (as in just looking at the overall success ratio etc). I can refer you to PhD's in statistics and applied mathematics if you need verification for my above statements.

Also, I know it is your prerogative as an editor to speedily delete articles you feel fulfill the speedy deletion criteria, but I had an "under construction" flag up and was in the process of creating/editing the page; I would have appreciated a warning shot. If you still feel the article needs help (after I include the points above), I will be glad to edit it so it is up to the standards; just let me know what I need to do.

Please respond as soon as you can. Thank you for your time. --Scotopia 15:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have any reliable sources that assert any sort of notability for your site? Before answering, you may want to have a look at the WP:WEB guideline on what a website needs to get its own article. As far as I can tell, this isn't even remotely close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for getting back. I think the issue here is that you are viewing the project as being just a website, which it is not. The article was referring to the whole system, of which the website is just a part (the data-collection front end). I agree that the article is deficient in sources at present (papers and various media coverage are on the way), but I firmly believe that it should be included in Wikipedia's content because it is something anyone who is reading the articles that were referencing this one (zener cards, clairvoyance, etc) would want to be aware of. --Scotopia 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you point out some examples of reliable sources you'd actually use in the article? I don't see a single mention of this anywhere on Google News, Google books, Google scholar, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some sources are appearing now on google news, yahoo news, etc. Just search for "anima project" or even just "paranormal" and you should find them. Thanks. --Scotopia 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If You Go Away

Renfrewshire Youth Voice

Could you please be helpful and perhap tell me how i can indicate the importance of the group as i am still (or was) writing the page. - KrizzyB (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! .... Hope you have forgiven my immature behaviour during this some time ago... Keep in touch -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 07:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Prolebrity deletion

Hi there.

I see that you deleted the entry I created for Prolebrity and am wondering why. Prolebrity is both a new word that athletes are starting to use (it's a mix of the word pro and celebrity) and there is also a new website called Prolebrity.com that is dedicated towards following Prolebrities. I thought this warranted the creation of a page and am wondering why you disagree.

Seanbesser (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Worden moved to User:Ugryjake

I was able to userfy the page just before you deleted it. The page you deleted was a redirect. BuickCenturyDriver (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Zachary Jaydon

There seems to be confusion as to the relation between Jaydon D. Paull & Zachary Jaydon. They are one in the same. A large percentage of performers/artists don't go by their legal name. Any notability no matter which of the two names they are credited under are still assertions of nobility under either or both. Many people are eliminating anything that can be user uploaded or changed. I agree with the principle of this in general, however, videos, magazine scans and the such are irrefutable proof of events or facts no matter where they came from. If there is a video of Mr. Jaydon playing with a National Rock Band, you can't say that because it was put up by a "user" that the fact doesn't remain.

While every sentence of this Wiki Article isn't strongly sourced, it doesn't mean he doesn't meat notability requirements for an article. I have scanned and uploaded quite a few of my sources at: http://zacharyjaydonwiki.blogspot.com/

Also, the following was taken directly from WP:N#MUSIC:

Criteria for composers and lyricists

For composers, songwriters, librettists or lyricists: 

  1. Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

Jaydon has written material on several Multi-Platinum records, including *NSYNC, Craig David, Ryan Cabrera and others. These WERE songs that were included on these albums. They weren't scrapped, or obscure B-Sides. These were songs included on official releases by MAJOR artists. He obviously has notable talent if these artists are choosing to work with him. This is obviously an arguable issue, but given the success of the albums his work has been featured on, it seems at the VERY least, notable. These credits are easily verifiable here:

([18], [19], [20])

The 3 above sources are all from www.ASCAP.com which is one of the most trusted sources used on Wiki for Songwriter Credit Verification.

([21]) also shows from a VERY large, Fortune 500 companies website with information on Close To Home and confirming Mr. Jaydon's Songwriting Credits. This website would be considered reliable on any front, and also independent of the subject himself.

Skyler Morgan (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for blocking Barfy McBarf (or whatever his name was -- the vandal who had a personal attack against me on his talk page). I appreciate your work. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were the one who was there! FYI, I saw you erasing articles being put up for Speedy Delete consideration (I am doing some New Page Patrol today), and I also saw your input in other areas of Wikipedia, too (including some interesting AfD discussions). A job well done deserves praise, so please accept this as a token of my appreciation:
The Special Barnstar
In celebration of your important, impressive and invaluable contributions to Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! I'll proudly add it to the gallery! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. FYI, I checked out your art on the Net -- your work is incredible! Please let me know when you have any gallery shows coming up. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Designed to Sell AfD: Chad Lopez

I have left a very large comment on the Chad Lopez AfD explaining why there are ten (and more) carpenters on Designed to Sell. I watch the show so much, I understand the issue at hand. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You might want to archive this. It's getting pretty long.

Rick McGhie

When deleting pages Rick McGhie, please remember to delete the redirect pages as well Rick mcghie thank you Dbiel (Talk) 22:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThefucKINGFUCKS, please read over WP:MUSIC and WP:ORG again, specifically the top areas. They explicitly state that failure to mee the notability criteria is not sufficient for speedy deletion. In order to properly use speedy deletion, the article must not attempt to assert notability.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 14:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cavlan

Greetings. I noticed you recently !voted to delete the article on Michael Cavlan. I have since added multiple instances of non-trivial coverage of Cavlan in reliable sources, and would like to invite you to recheck the article and perhaps rethink your !vote accordingly. Regards, Skomorokh 23:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD revisit

Greetings, I see that you have provided input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ThefucKINGFUCKS, which I nominated, in favor of deletion. Since you cast your vote, the article has been improved quite a bit and no longer seems to fail notability under WP:BAND or any other relevant guideline. I'd like to ask you to revisit the article and reassess your position, and as the orignal nominator, I have changed my own position regarding the article's deletion. If you do find that the article now establishes notability, please consider changing your position on the article's deletion discussion. Thanks.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathmo AfD

Would appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Mathmo as it's been subject to a non-Admin closure. The non-admin in question seems to have totally ignored the fact that it's a DictDef. Mrh30 (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted page: Dr. Whisky -- notability does exist

Hi there -- you deleted the article Dr. Whisky while I was in the process of editing it to fix the broken references. I have already had a discussion with wikipedia editor CambridgeBayWeather regarding the notability of this entry and had addressed his concerns; can you give me a sense of what issues you have with the post?

In case it's helpful, the reason I believe he's notable is that this guy is really changing the way that single-malt scotch whiskies are enjoyed: pretty much every whisky writer beforehand wrote for the connoisseur, but Sam writes for the regular person and he's had a really big impact doing so. Evidence of this is the 2007 award for Best New Product (non-whisky), otherwise known as the Peoples Choice Award: it's pretty tough to win a whisky industry award for not having a whisky, and he got 45% of the popular vote. I guess my opinion is that he's prolific, known and respected in his community:

http://www.inebrio.com/Drammies/2007.php http://www.whiskygrotto.com/2008/07/02/fellow-blogger-dr-whisky-appointed-new-brand-ambassador-for-the-balvenie/ http://www.whiskycast.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=356167# http://www.thewhiskyexchange.com/P-7097.aspx http://www.forscotchlovers.com/about_us/sam_simmons http://spencerfield.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/dr-whisky-reviews-pigs-nose/

Let me know what you think, and thanks.

Ianbrooks2000 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)ianbrooks2000Ianbrooks2000 (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I understand a bit better now. I wasn't up to speed on the proper use of pseudonyms. Based on the reference in your deletion to "bio" and "real person", I'm guessing that's the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbrooks2000 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Stillman update

Can you update the Stacey Stillman article to say what the outcome of her court case was? Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 09:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Cal Chamberlain

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cal Chamberlain. 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. More specifically, I'm asking for a copy for my user space, to see if I agree with your assessment, as I wasn't informed of the deletion. AniMate 03:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the article, I think this was a bad speedy. True, he may have been borderline when it comes to notability, but with the sources and his connections to notable organizations this should have gone through an AfD. I'd appreciate your response at the deletion review. AniMate 08:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I weighed in at the DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Would you support an RfA from an editor who made it clear that the only tool he intended to use was the ability to view deleted articles? DuncanHill (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would depend on the editor, obviously, but in general principle I don't think there's any reason to deny adminship simply because the user isn't interested in every aspect of it. A perfectly good admin might not touch deletions or blocks but still be great with other stuff. But at the same time, a user who primarily wants to view deleted material had better have a flawless record and be otherwise an essentially ideal candidate. As I've pointed out, there's really bad shit in there, and anybody who seems a little too eager to get handed the keys to that closet is gonna face some major scrutiny. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Holiday Parade

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Holiday Parade. 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. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GladRags

While the secondary arguments (of the article approaching a G11-type speedy) is valid, and it certainly requires cleanup, you also mentioned that the subject fails WP:CORP. Could you add information to the AFD discussion as to why you think it fails these guidelines? Others have located numerous secondary sources and there are numerous ghits for the subject - do you feel the article needs to provide these, or did you use some other criteria? Kylu (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments where AGF was not entirely obvious

Please be aware that I responded to your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Cala Resort, where you questioned my research skills. I always do Google searches whenever I am in doubt on a subject that I am considering for either AfD or CSD. Openly questioning someone's research and/or editorial abilities in front of the community blurs the concept of WP:AGF. While I doubt that was intended, your comments came across as more than a little cutting. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your new comments directed at me in the aforementioned discussion are highly insulting. Please show respect -- I've done nothing to you to deserve such treatment. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to assume good faith that your comments were not meant to be intentionally rude and that your brand of humour escaped my itty-bitty brain. Perhaps I seriously misinterpreted the intentions of your messaging; I hope I did not create offense by claiming offense. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with "brand" of humour. Our WP:AGF policy is meant to discourage witch-hunts and unwarranted suspicion... it is NOT meant as armour against criticism or advice. I find especially disturbing your suggestion that I should shut off my computer, implying that those who disagree with you and your tactics should just give up and stop editing. In the past I had considered you both a valued and respected contributor as well as a friend--you even gave me a barnstar a few months back--and I'm saddened and disgusted to see you fall to this level. I hope this is just a passing phase and that things get back on track soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My comment on shutting off the computer was made because I perceived (incorrectly) that you were being rude. Clearly there has been a major hiccup in communications. To show my good will and genuine remorse, I am closing the AfD and citing your work in saving the article. I am sorry if my misinterpretation created unpleasantness. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the AfD discussion and issued a public apology for misintepreting your comments. I am sorry that I spoiled your online time today. In view of your saving the article, please accept this as a token of my genuine respect:
The Rescue from Deletion Barnstar
For your effort in saving La Cala Resort from being deleted -- job well done! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am hitting my little red box in the upper right corner of my computer screen. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Everyone has a bad day now and then. The article won't be up for FA anytime soon, but I've worked on it a little and feel it has been improved. I've noticed you fixed the references too, thanks. I accept and appreciate your apology and assure you that you still have my long-term respect. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away from my computer for a while and I see a verdict has come of this article for deletion. As this discussion has moved here I will reply to Ecoleetage's response here. I have seen and known about Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and fully aware before posting. Welcome to the Wikipedia Holiday Travel Guide, where you can choose a fine resort...oh, wait, Wikipedia is not a holiday travel guide! This slice of tourist spam needs to be tossed out was the reason for the speedy delete tag. Therefore as other stuff exists is not policy and the AfD page does not link to or highlight the essay I think that this is an example of a rare circumstance when my reason for keeping the article is absolutely valid. I would like to know if there is consensus on the authority the essays have, in my opinion they are not policy (am I right?). As for notability well you Starblind have already cleared that matter up so I will not comment on that and very well done indeed. Can I ask of what your thoughts are regarding my Strong Keep?. Thankyou and nice work on getting the barnstar.--Theoneintraining (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding - I am also curious to know how the discussion at AfD moved from being a issue of being a "travel guide" to a notability issue. my mind boggles.--Theoneintraining (talk) 02:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Hoser

Hi there, I've found some peer-reviewed publications that discuss Hoser's work. Could you take another look at the article and the AfD discussion? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of weedpunk

Hi, you speedy deleted the Weedpunk article recently (see: Starblind (Talk | contribs) deleted "Weedpunk" (G3: Vandalism: Hoax, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weedpunk)) But I really do not think that you can point to the other AfD as justification for a G3 speedy. First of all, its not vandalism. There were numerous new sources that I've been working on for a year since the last time, since obviously consensus was that there were not enough reliable sources. If you did feel it necessitated deleting, the new evidence in support of the article should have at least gone through the AfD process I believe. Thanks for hearing me out. --Banime (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James ashford article

I noticed your comment on the James ashford AFD debate. I was pretty surprised to see it declined as CSD. Even if the admin reviewer didn't accept it as unremarkable person (A7), then couldn't have been pure vandalism/blatant misinformation (G3)? It doesn't take much to figure out that a 16 year old kid working at Starbucks and listing Facebook as his webpage is most likely not "seen as one of the most influential human rights activists in the UK of the 21st Century".

Anyway, I certainly agree that it's a waste of time - I certainly didn't want to put it in AFD and take away from the real debates there. I'm still kind of new to this and figuring the processes out. Thank you for your comments on the AFD. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I admire your straight-forward no BS style. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grandulon Mixtape Vol.1 (Rey El Grandulon album)

Regarding your comment here, we have been trying to work out a new criterion for speedy deletion that regards albums by red link artists. There's a discussion going on here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Kollár

That's easy for you to say, as you American, and no European. The wikipedia's logo is The Free Encyclopedia, accordingly the Péter Kollár, and others gone in the Wikipedia, no excuse the obscurity, as the wikipedia open the door to something for the cognition. This argument is very cripple, there is no need for the wikipedia, or else every wikipedia so be it recluse! The article Péter Kollár is rational and acceptable article, unlike other big cocks, i tosee very much everywhere. Doncsecz (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Zografski

I did wrong with that Vladimir Zografski Article. Please recreate it and move it back to User:AlwaysOnion/Vladimir Zografski. AlwaysOnion (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Rossi

Hi Starblind. I updated the AfD nomination for Theo Rossi. Please have a look. Thanks, Bongomatic (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Weedpunk

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Weedpunk. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Banime (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

frankly, i suggest the best course might be to revert it and send it to afd. DGG (talk) 17:45, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Guy Hodgson

Hello starblind, the article I created about Guy Hodgson was marked for speedy delete by you for him having no real Significance. However he is the nephew of one of the England Rugby Teams' coaches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alig112 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Leslie

Hi Starblind. I have restored the above article to user space per a email request it be given an opportunity to be improved. I believe that there is some notability there, and that it can be brought up to standard. Moondyne 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of New Age Gaming

This article has been deleted twice recently for 'no assertion of notability' and most recently since it 'Doesn't indicate importance or significance of a group/band/company/etc.' While this may have been true of the article, I believe the subject matter is encyclopedia-worthy. New Age Gaming magazine is a long running, popular and respected gaming magazine in South Africa and even though it is of little international interest it is certainly worthy of a wikipedia article. AKeron Za (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy delete looked to be correct to me. I replied to the user on his talk page offering to restore the original article to his user space if he wants to work on references.
Oh, long time, no see. :-P --GraemeL (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing your input

Hey there, I've not seen you online in some time. I hope all is well -- AfD is not the same without you, truly. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just saw some new input from you -- good to see you back at the AfD pages! Ecoleetage (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

LOVED YOUR ARTICLE

I loved your article: User:Starblind/DeletionWars I think I am going to post a link to it on other pages, other editors should read this article. Have you considered updating the article for 2009? maybe a brief paragraph?

What was the article which Jimbo put up for deletion? travb (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Youtube Poop...

I believe that the article mentioned above was wrongly deleted. I would very much appreciate you looking into this matter.JIMfoamy1 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starblind&oldid=263053479"