If you want to contact me, read this!

Strongly recommended: Make a note on my talk page.

Not recommended: Email. I seldom check my mailbox, so you may not get a reply for days or even weeks.

If you email me, I will only reply on your user talk page. No reply via email will be made.

Business material

Administrator: All (Deletes) (Protects) (Blocks) (Moves) (Patrols) (Uploads)

21 pages for speedy deletion: (list) (update) Today is Thursday, May 16, 2024. The time is 14:34 (UTC). (refresh)

Click here to leave a new message

Old messages

If your message is not on this page, try looking into these archives, starting from the most recent.

Most recent: 01 Oct 10 0228 UTC

Less recent (oldest first): Jun 05 to Dec 06, 08 Feb 07 0341 UTC, 04 Apr 07 1456 UTC, 16 Apr 07 1533 UTC, 21 Nov 07 0556 UTC, 30 Nov 07 0305 UTC, 04 Jan 08 1435 UTC, 20 Jan 08 0823 UTC, 22 Jan 08 1058 UTC, 28 Jan 08 0123 UTC, 29 Jan 08 1211 UTC, 11 Feb 08 0048 UTC, 2 Apr 08 0102 UTC, 23 May 08 1240 UTC, 25 Sep 08 0615 UTC, 26 Sep 08 0233 UTC, 17 Nov 08 0523 UTC, 08 Aug 10 0814 UTC, 03 Sep 10 0239 UTC, 20 Sep 10 0430 UTC, 25 Sep 13 0758 UTC

Other usernames: As Spinning beachball: 4 Oct 07 0144 UTC; as Resurgent insurgent: 18 Apr 07 0313 UTC, 11 May 07 0216 UTC, 7 Jun 07 1403 UTC, 21 Jun 07 0639 UTC, 18 Oct 07 2237 UTC, 2 Nov 07 0427 UTC, 15 Nov 07 1106 UTC; as Kavadi carrier: 20 Nov 06 0524 UTC; as Flyingtoaster1337: 31 Jan 2007 0236 UTC, 8 Feb 07 1526 UTC

Deletion of Z Corporation article

You deleted the Z Corporation page I created yesterday, even though the page met all the article requirements, and included a third-party reference that is used on another article's page. The Z Corporation article contained only factual, instructional information, rather than any promotional information,and it's contents are beneficial to a large group of people. The Stratasys Corporation article however is highly promotional, contains no third-party references, yet remains live. This seems to be an unfair implementation on the site. Please advise. I request to have the Z Corporation page reinstated, or at a minimum, please advise what needs to be done to that page in order to have it reinstated.Asarkof (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be references to multiple (two or more) articles in third-party reliable sources that discuss the company in detail. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article on Aqua Connect

Why did you delete the article on Aqua Connect. There was no discussion of any product, and there was nothing that sold or promoted the product. It simply stated what the company did, and it was also referenced from neutral and independent sources. There is no reason for your deletion of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There was no discussion of any product, and there was nothing that sold or promoted the product." - Wow! That is an incredibly honest thing to say, considering that in the version I deleted, after three short paragraphs which state that "Aqua Connect is an IT company...", "it has two products...", and it "was founded in the spring of 2007...", then goes on to eight - eight - long paragraphs in two sections titled "technology overview" and "Aqua Connect Terminal Server 3.0". Even a fool could've guessed what those paragraphs said just by looking at the section titles. "No discussion of any product", huh?

To cut it short, the article went into great detail regarding the products' features. And if that's not "promotion of ~~a product~~ two products", I don't know what is.

"it was also referenced from neutral and independent sources" - another honest thing to say considering that the references section was nowhere to be found when I looked at the page. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for adding the part about the product, I thought I had deleted it from the entry. Besides that, I thought adding the external links would create a reference page- it did not. Now I know how to do that. I don't appreciate your sarcasm or rudeness, this has been my first wiki entry and a little help will make the article worthy of a wiki. Could you please let me try another build and let me know what it will need.

What would I need to do in oder to get the page up. The importance of the company: they are the FIRST company to provide terminal services for the Mac platform. This means that VM Ware's VDI software, which is on Wiki, would be based off of Aqua Connect's technology. I know it is not fair to compare other pages, but companies who compete against Aqua Connect have Wiki pages with their products all over it (VM Ware). I just want to know what to do to get an article up for a company and technology that deserves it, but in a manner in which it will be acceptable to Wiki's terms. Thanks for the help. Like I said, I have a new build that should suffice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MacJarvis (talk • contribs)

Are there any articles in third-party reliable sources (not blogs or wikis) that back up what you claim? Pegasus «C¦T» 01:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article on Lovento.com

I have added an article on a web service called Lovento.com in a very objective manner. It is not understandable to me that the page was deleted. Your argument is not understandable. => "Not explaining the importance"... This would be the same as if you would delete an article about a small village with less than 500 citizens, just because in history there was nothing important in this village, or just because it's small.

An encyclopedia is supposed to explain things and not their importance.

Please be so kind to think again about your decision. There was no advertising and nothing which really could have disturbed apart of the fact that you as an admin just don't feel for to have the article there.

I interpret (and for sure lots of others else) your deletion behavior as very arbitrary.

Kind regards

Primetime1974Primetime1974 (talk) 07:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since anyone can start a website and get their own domain name, websites need to be notable according to the criteria given here in order to be eligible for a Wikipedia article. In other words any article on a website will need to explain how the site is important or "notable". Articles which fail to explain thus will be deleted. How notability is determined differs from villages to websites, and thus your comparison is not correct. In summary, my deletion behaviour is far from arbitrary. It was because your article did not show how Lovento.com meets any of the notability criteria for websites. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aduup

I have remove the promotional speak from the page. Also after reviewing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DoubleClick and aduup pages which we templated the site after, it seems there is a lot of explaination of the company and their services there also. In my opinion if adUup is now considered an advertisement than DoubleClick is also.

Love to know what you feel. Any help in keeping it neutral will be greatly appreciated.

--Soltrinox (talk) 04:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not good for an article. No sign this startup satisfies any of the notability criteria for companies. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure. adUup is in the process of acquiring the Pop-under patent which will effectively push it to one of the top ranking ad networks in the world due to the patent on the pop-under. The patent is worth over 1.2 Billion a year in ad revenue and constitutes over 8% of all onlina dvertising. How is that not significant?? Also adUup is the holder of two significant new ad unit ptents which are launching this year. also own one of the 12 meta search engines that exist based upon a new technology standard.

How are these things not significant? try the search engine and see for your self. fleeq.com this is a new breed of search engine based on new cutting edge technology. Do we require more press before we are alowed to have a wiki entry? that does not seem fair?

--Soltrinox (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Less self-promotion, please. Where are the independent, third-party references in reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, and the like; blogs do not count) that support what you say? Pegasus «C¦T» 05:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Servcorp

Dear Pegasus, please advise why Servcorp is blatent advertising? my experience with Wiki is limited, but my understanding is that seeing as multiple articles within wiki refer to Servcorp and that there is currently no information on this company that it is an appropriate article to add? Cheers, James (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2008 (AEST)

It does not appear to satisfy any of the notability criteria for companies. Regards, Pegasus «C¦T» 08:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pegasus, The article is about the second largest serviced office provider internationally, the company is mentioned in several other articles on wikipedia and countless internet and non-internet sources. Although I'm not insistant on adding this article in particular, I'm simply trying to understand your reasoning in deleting the article so that I can contribute elsewhere on wikipedia appropriately. Is there another way in which this should be discussed? would it be inappropriate to re-add the article after alterations with more citation and information in regards to the company? Thanks again for your help. Cheers, James (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (AEST)

Have there been multiple detailed articles about this company in third-party sources (i.e, not from the company's website or press releases)? If there have been, tell me here, and you may write something based on these articles. Try to avoid referencing the company's website as the source of your information. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pegasus, I understand completely! I have a few writings which I have and will reference straight away, although I am not the foremost expert on the subject of Servcorp, so there will (likely) be others that will contribute... Do you think the below is enough information to start with?

Title	Detail
Financial Writings
	ASX Company Information
Routers Finance	Routers Analysis of Servcorp
Independant Writings
The Age - Editorials	Article written by Paul Robinson
CRN Australia	Article written by Leanne Mezrani
Computer World	Article written by Sandra Rossi
In Print Writings
The Bulletin	Published by J. Haynes and J.F. Archibald 1984, Page 108, "Australian Niche Markets"
The Definative Guide to Doing Business in China	Published by Graham Earnshaw, Michael Pennington 2005, Page 164, "Serviced Offices"

Cheers, James (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2008 (AEST)

Thanks!

Hey Pegasus: Just wanted to say "Thanks" for your recent help fixing an error, and for telling me how to do it correctly. :-) EditorUSA (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are sufficient for a neutral article on the company. Pegasus «C¦T» 03:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pegasus, I have re-created the page and recreated the text so that it has removed any inline citations to the company web. Regards, Fianderjames (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEB.de

Dear Pegasus, please respect hangon in future. Thanks. Best --Weissmann (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eutony

Hi i just declined the speedies put forth by that anon. They then retagged and snarled at me. I think the article needs some work, but I don't think it is blatant advetizing. What do you think? Dloh cierekim 03:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll mention that to the anon, who seems to have it in for the articles. Dloh cierekim 04:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Yang Peiyi

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Yang Peiyi. 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. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Edward Ivins

Why did you delete the logs for User:Jimmyflathead? This is the alleged userpage of Bruce Edward Ivins, the anthrax terrorist suspect who killed himself. The userpage is linked from his article. This is certainly not a "noncontroversial cleanup" as you say.

You say you won't be on Wikipedia "for personal reasons", but you seem to be avidly deleting stuff.

Also what's up with those "other usernames"? Are sockpuppets now OK?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.49.22 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia editors are not required to have user pages. The edits of the editor may be controversial, but there is nothing controversial about his user page. Before I deleted it, it was blanked by the editor themselves, after someone mistakenly posted a warning template on it (should've been on the editor's talk page instead).

As for my sockpuppetry, it is a taboo to use alternate accounts in a "good hand, bad hand" manner, or to give the illusion of numbers in discussions. I have not done either of these with my sockpuppets. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal R. Ingersoll II

Hello Pegasus! I agree with your reasoning. However, no ship was named after Lieutenant Ingersoll, only after his father and his grandfather (see USS Ingersoll (DD-652) and USS Ingersoll (DD-990)), so I will restore the SD-Tag. Adrianwn (talk) 11:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. See http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/i2/ingersoll.htm

"Ingersoll (DD-652) was named for two naval men."

Going from questioning notability to deletion in two hours on an article that's two years old seem excessively 'speedy'.

—WWoods (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering this new information, I propose that the article gets undeleted (because WP:CSD does not apply anymore). Adrianwn (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blocks

Hello, I noticed your blocking of User:Mindflowellness for spamming. You might also want to check User:Maika-etnik, whose (Indonesian) article on a company of the same name got deleted per CSD spam and copyvio. Regards, De728631 (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Blocked too. Pegasus «C¦T» 17:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aneel Ahmad

I was about to remove the speedy tag from this article because I believed there was a weak assertion of notability. It most likely wouldn't have survived AFD though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, saw it and reversed my deletion. Pegasus «C¦T» 02:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baie des Chaleurs vs Chaleur Bay

Dear Pegasus, last November you correctly moved a page (Chaleur Bay to Baie des Chaleurs) upon my providing evidence of breach of Wikipedia naming conventions. It has just come to my attention that User:PlasmaEast has reversed your action, going against Discussion page contents. I attempted to undo the move, and the dialog box stated the undo was possible, yet the page has not moved back to Baie des Chaleurs, even though I removed that redirect as well, can you help fix this? Thank youTallard (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hep C Nomads

See User talk:Hepcnomads#Review request and Talk:Hepatitis C#Hep C Nomads. I believe user:Banch1965 when he says that he is not the webmaster. I do not think COI is an issue here - it is simply a matter of notability and I am asking others to judge whether the website is notable enough for an article here. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lew Anderson.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lew Anderson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 18:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DongSing Junior High School prod

Hi there, just a quick question. You recently changed the CSD for this article to a prod, which made perfect sense to me as it didn't seem to fit the CSD criteria, it just wasn't a very good article. What I'm trying to find is if there are guidelines/policy on notability of schools. All I've managed to find is a proposal that didn't get enough support to be passed into a policy. Does such a policy/guideline exist yet, or do we have to still have to use the broad notability guidelines? Ged UK (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge there are no notability guidelines specific to schools, but I last checked about half a year ago. The general guideline should weed out most of the delete-worthy ones. Pegasus «C¦T» 10:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) Ged UK (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 kashmir unrest

it is word for word identical..except may be for the international section which i offer to re introduce inthe original article..please delete the waste article or if need be add a redirect page from this..Cityvalyu (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

porsche911b

I do not understand why you are calling my work "add promotional material". Please explain. I have viewed the contents of Intergraph, Caliper Corporation, MapInfo, ESRI, etc. and I do not understand how or see what is different. Please help me to understand.Porsche911b (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for RF CHECK

An editor has asked for a deletion review of RF CHECK. 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. Oroso (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, about my signature

I have renamed the template from Template:MacedonianBoy/Signature to User:MacedonianBoy/Signature. Is it ok now?--MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is okay. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, and I have also gave some reasons for the picture of non-existing union between GR and SR. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 09:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And like a broken record, I have to repeat the same reason for declining. Again. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get paid for this?

Or are you a bot? Randomgong (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, and no. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Sarabia and Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez

You should do a study of Spanish language naming practices. His name is Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez, but Sarabia is his main last name.

Half the time he is called Alejandro Sarabia and they never refer to him as Gonzalez. The Church News article does not use Gonzalez, and some of the news articles that mention Sarabia do not use Gonzalez.

The Church news article also refers to his wife as Kim Sarabia. A fuller Spainish would be Kim Goldman de Sarabia.

There are lots of other people for whom this factor applies. Agricol Lozano is also known as Agricol Lozano Herrera. However I have seen places where his name is listed as Agricol Lozano H.

Do not edit naming ideas in foriegn cultures if you know nothing about their naming practices.

I know this sounds harsh, but your actions totally disregard the naming practices in Spanish and that it is the second last name that gets dropped or ignored half the time.Johnpacklambert (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AirNZSafetyDemoBrace.jpg

Very odd this one; it's working fine for me now but yesterday was absolutely a blank (transparent, actually) jpg. What is odd is that no other images were behaving in such a way so I simply assumed it to be a corrupt/blank image. So, I hope you don't think it was a random "Act of Prod"! Thanks for removing the tag though; the main thing is the image seems fine now. A quirk of the Internet... Coldmachine^Talk 23:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More likely MediaWiki acting up, which seems to be rather frequent nowadays. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Jo Shin Ae article

I've read your reason but i still don't understand why you deleted the articles though. She's a korean actress and model. IMO, that can be considered as notable. More information can be found here. --87.192.101.246 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who appears in multiple TV dramas and serials is considered notable, according to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Are there multiple reports in reliable sources (newspaper, magazine, etc) that exclusively talk about her? Pegasus «C¦T» 04:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can found them a lots on the net but they are mostly in korean. Examples including StarNews, Daum.net, Donga.com, and Korean Wikipedia. If you are looking for reports in English, here is from Donga and Korea Times. --87.192.101.246 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to bring the article back? It seems like you've been ignoring my reply above. The original creator put a lots of efforts in making the article and yet, you just deleted it without any further contemplation. --87.192.101.246 (talk) 07:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for ignoring you. I am relctant to restore the article because I feel the case for her notability is borderline at best. You may wish to make a deletion review request, which will generate consensus to hopefully restore the article. But I do not feel she is notable and so I don't want to do it by myself. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, this user does not understand the parameters of messaging Yosef.garibaldi.gmail (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks for contributing.

the resurgence of italy in 1860

and the insurgency against the British Mandate for Palestine

were fascinating stories in world history.

thanks for the help with how to survive on this project.

and peace be with you. (shalom eleichem.)

SAVE POK ARTICLE

please save POK article from deletion Pakistan occupied Kashmir article has been posted for deletion..i have made the following appeal there:

do not delete : PLEASE allow editing to take place in this article so that it gets balanced; disabling editing and then crying unbalanced is hypocrisy!!!..As we all know we didn't delete european union article just because there was an "england" article or "france" article or "germany" article (which are part of EU nevertheless) ... Similarly we did not destroy soviet union article just because it is divided into 15 parts..Further it is very very clear that POK is not the same as "azad k ONLY" or "northern areas ONLY" as pok also includes trans karakoram tract, gilgit and baltistan (from 1947 till now)...pok term is used by most if not all non pakistan media.so ip and soman contention invalid.. i think it is not "fork" since contents are not identical, verifiable, has reliable sources and differs from the other articles like "trans-Karakoram tract" or "Northern Areas" (at the maximum, there is a passing reference in the summary(if this is considered fork) style with redirect links to sub regions).So, i am opposing this high handed move based on ignorance..rather i suggest that those who suggest it as non neutral contribute towards making this neutral, if it is not already neutral..pahari sahib's contention of inflammatory not substantiated both in talk page of pok or otherwise..so DO NOT DELETEKashmircloud (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you can improve this article or if you believe that the article can be improved by removing the edit ban(say, exampple: semiprotect) and if you also concur that pok not equal to ajk, please help in saving this article from deleters with nationalistic (pakistani)/ religious(islamist?) motives for POK article removal(example: User:paharisahib is pakistani)..please save the POKarticle...Kashmircloud (talk) 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Company Page

Hi, I am messaging to enquire more about why "Egypt Has It All" company wiki entrance was deleted. I followed the guidelines to the best of my ability. The deletion "reasoning" in the history of the page says "Blatant Advertising". All that was stated in the page is information plus history of the company. Do you have any recommendations on how the page can be reuploaded?

Thanks Kelemam (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no references to show how the company is notable. In addition, the page appears to promote the company as an affiliate to other similar companies. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Floodgap gopher fun menu.PNG

Thanks for uploading Image:Floodgap gopher fun menu.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 09:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

welcome message

I like your welcome message very much:) LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PCO Innovation

I am sorry that you deleted the page i created about PCO innovation, because it could violate the copyright (the introduction is a copy/paste of the introduction of the site). The problem is that i have the permission of PCO Innovation to publish this introduction in the same form (i am working for PCO Innovation, and my boss asked me if could insert a page there !!!). Is there any possibility of getting back this page ? Should i send you something that prooves that i do not violate a copyright ? Thank you. --Viteazul (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not permit advertising. Even if your page was not a violation of copyright it would have been deleted due to its promotional content. I can still email you the text of the article if that is what you want.

Lastly since you work for this company I would strongly advise you not to post anything related to your firm. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for a detailed reason. Pegasus «C¦T» 13:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: nathanvoite RF CHECK

Hello,

I have completely reworked and written the article "RF CHECK". It now complies with Wiki standards. I would like to get the page posted/reviewed. How is this done? What is the next step?

Sincerely,

Nathan Voite Nathanvoite (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post the text on your user page, for example User:Nathanvoite/RF Check and we can take a look. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is on my user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nathanvoite

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Nathan Voite 15:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no sign the company satisfies the companies notability criteria. In a nutshell, there must be two or more articles from third-party, reliable sources that talk exclusively about this company in detail. No references of this sort were present. Thus, article re-deleted. Pegasus «C¦T» 09:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the two articles from third-party, reliable sources have been added and are present as references 6 and 8. RCR Wireless: Labor day Counties could get ‘zapped’ in RF liability cases

Also note that Woland37 nominated this article for speedy deletion but then removed the tag after the edits were made. After which, the article was deleted and I was unable to add the {hangon} tag to request a review period. Please investigate and reconsider.

Thank you,

The article in question can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nathanvoite

Nathanvoite (talk) 16:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Nathanvoite (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that newest reference does constitute non-trivial coverage of the company. But our notability guidelines require multiple instances of such coverage. A single article is not sufficient to establish notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 11:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cough, cough!

Per this (blocked by me on Commons), maybe you could look at this & this. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. :) Pegasus «C¦T» 11:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short of time today or I would have done it myself. Thanks & regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of wokai(org)

Hello - I feel strongly that the notability criteria including references from numerous secondary sources was fulfilled so i do not agree with your deleting the page based on the 'notability' policy. I also object to your deletion of the page before the 5-day editing period had expired. Given that many of the external resources had been edited out, this obviously depleted the quality of the article. I would like to re-post the article with new sections that clearly and beyond reasonable doubt establish the notability of this organization in compliance with the policy. So I am open to your suggestions about how to frame the article so it will not be removed again - let's discuss please. Thanks KDguac (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by KDguac (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I feel strongly that the notability criteria including references from numerous secondary sources was fulfilled" - what you feel about it doesn't matter as much as whether the references were actually in the article at all, which they weren't when I looked over it.

"I also object to your deletion of the page before the 5-day editing period had expired" - You had already removed the {{prod}} from the page and you could have done anything in that edit to add the required references. Neither was the page deleted right after you de-prodded. The five days' grace period is only a rule while the prod template remains on the page. The intent is to prevent as much as possible the page being deleted without people interested in the article's preservation being made aware of it. But you were made aware of it so the rule no longer applied.

"Many of the external links had been edited out" - and for good reason too. None of the removed ones mention the company directly or even worse, were links to social networking websites which are in no way reliable sources.

"I would like to re-post the article with new sections" - how about, don't? Not before you tell me, right here on this page, what references you plan to add to the article. Pegasus «C¦T» 23:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pegasus- Thanks for letting me know your reasoning. Here's my feedback: you're right, at the time when you looked at it the article it had zero external references -- this is because a majority of the externally referenced info had been removed by orangemike the day before; i attempted to post rebuttal on the talk page & his talk page because i think he his objection was that the sections weren't relevant not that the external references weren't good. But i did not make the updates with reference material in time.

External references to Wokai that support notability guidelines for organizations

[Rural Revolution], China International Business
[Wokai and youth in microfinance], Asian American Giving
[Social entrepreneurship in Sichuan: Interview with Meg Young of Ecologia, a sustainable development program], Responsible China.com
[What Microfinance Means for China’s Growth], Black and White
Co-Founders interviewed by the [World Journal] (chinese)
[Wokai: Microfinance for China] The Global Venture
Wokai CEO presented at conference of industry experts: [Asia Microfinance Forum 2008]
Wokai CEO presented at conference of industry experts: China Association of Microfinance, Oct 27, 2007

Structure of article

ok, so my original thinking was that having sections specific to microfinance in China, use of technology in peer-to-peer lending, and the importance of relationships (guanxi) was critical important background to why wokai is notable as an organization. These sections provide key insight into how wokai's model and niche is different from other microfinance institutions whose existence is widely documented. I would like to lay that out in a way that highlights the differences for readers, but again, my first attempt was deleted....presumably because he interpretted the material as superfluous or unrelated; perhaps i just need to structure it differently for clarity. Also, while I agree with you that social networking sites are not credible references, social networking as a phenomenon is a vital cog in the peer-to-peer lending engine - i think i need to find a way to include this as relevant to the topic without making it appear to be an actual reference. I know there is a lot of interest in this topic right now and would like to take another shot at the article structure. I am open to your suggestions on content & format. thank you. KDguac (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following up for response before making necessary changes and re-posting the article. Do you disagree that there are sufficient external references? Are there other issues you'd like me to considerKDguac (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK you can start the article. But only [1] and [2] look like they come from undoubtedly reliable sources. As a rule we exclude blog postings. Don't include any of the other links. Pegasus «C¦T» 00:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, i have re-posted the article and would appreciate any further insights you may have on content & format. KDguac (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Jo Shin Ae

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jo Shin Ae. 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. 87.192.101.246 (talk) 05:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

deleted TARGIT -why?

Dear Pegasus

I do not understand why you deleted my TARIGT article? I tried to keep it from a neutral point of view. However you keep deleting it, what is wrong? Point it out to me.

Compared to some other BI tools, i simply do not understand it. They have the same info in their articles?

Thomasrk (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were no reliable sources mentioned to back up the claims in the article. The notability criteria for companies requires two or more reports exclusively about the company from independent sources, and there was nothing like that in the article. Pegasus «C¦T» 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for TARGIT

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TARGIT. 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. -- Suntag ☼ 17:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC) -- Suntag ☼ 17:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua Connect v. 2.0

Would you kindly salt this page? It's been deleted four times now. *hums the cat came back* Whispering 05:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dried, pickled, and salted. Pegasus «C¦T» 07:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEND MORE MONEY

Deleted redirection SEND MORE MONEY is "the classic example of verbal arithmetic".--AndrejJ (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Supesredblue.PNG

I guess I'm not clear on deletion policy. If I physically scan an image, rotate it, crop it, adjust the color and contrast, do digital cleanup and minor mods, etc. all with the express purpose of using the resulting image on my website; and then someone else, without my permission, copies that image that I created from my site onto wikipedia; is that a violation? I have gone through this before with another image, and it was speedily deleted - so I am confused on the inconsistency here. Macduff (talk) 04:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a copyright violation if:

You had made major changes to the scanned copy; and
There was no rationale for fair use in any article in which the image was being used.

Since the changes you made to the image were minor, i.e., the end product is "based on and a close copy of" the original, the copyright of the image is not transferred to you, but remains with the original creator of the work. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this instance with the earlier one, that image had no fair use assertion, so it would have been deleted according to the non-free content policy anyway. Pegasus «C¦T» 05:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found another "Lyle123" sock

Hi! I happened to catch your name atop the blocked IP list and I hope I've caught you online. I'm a former editor who still pokes around the new user pages and such; I found User:SpaceFeatureFilmmovie2009 atop the list. No edits yet, but the naming conventions point to banned user User:Lyle123, aka User:StealBoy. This individual has plugged more AfD debates with his hoax articles over the last couple of years than I know what to do with. I believe that a checkuser may be in order as well. Thanks. --70.104.7.231 (talk) 05:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with this vandal. I'd suggest you make the Checkuser request yourself, since you'd be more experienced in what to ask for? If the CUs say "negative", I'd rather wait till they do damage, nasty as that might sound - I'm not familiar with his modus operandi after all. Pegasus «C¦T» 06:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No prob. I can't do it now since I have to sign off. When he's caught, he shrinks back into the background, so it's unlikely he'll be editing from the account even if it's unblocked for now. If he does create an article, chances are it'll be nonsense about a non-existent movie or studio merger. If you're comfortable blocking the account for now to prevent hoaxes or damage to existing articles, please feel free to do so and I'll file a checkuser. In fact, I'll even sign on under my old username if that'll help. I'd exercised the right to disappear, but doggone it, I just keep popping up since I really do care about the project, maddening as it is. Take care. :) --70.104.7.231 (talk) 06:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done Pegasus «C¦T» 06:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]