User talk:SlimVirgin

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

File:Animalibrí.gif

RfC: Should the NPOV policy contain two sections devoted to pseudoscience and religion? Please see this section of Wikipedia talk:NPOV.

France national team

You protected the article with the incorrect numbers. The user posted the incorrect numbers just before you fully protected the page. No I can't change them. Joao10Siamun (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are they actually wrong, John, or is this a difference of opinion? SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually discussed at WT:FOOTY. On 24 May, the FFF sent in the current official numbers to FIFA that the players will wear at the World Cup sourced here. However, in the ensuring two friendly matches, a couple of players wore numbers that contradicts the official FFF source such as Anelka and Ribery wearing 22 and 39. Regarding Anelka, players are only allowed to wear numbers 1–23 in official competition. My stance is keep the official numbers the FFF initially sent to FIFA until there is official mention that the numbers have been change. Jafdfm's stance is change the numbers to the currently unofficial numbers being worn in the friendlies without any confirmation other than the numbers are being worn in friendlies, which are currently posted. There is no difference of opinion. I told the user to just wait until it is announced that the numbers in the friendlies are official then change them. Joao10Siamun (talk) 00:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin protects an article, we have to protect on the version we encounter. There are circumstances in which we can revert to another version, such as vandalism, a BLP violation, 3RR violation, or something that's clearly incorrect or inappropriate. What you're describing here seems to be a difference of opinion, so I don't feel I can revert. What I'd suggest to settle the dispute is that you find secondary sources that have discussed the issue e.g. recent newspaper articles about the team. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I dislike encountering such situations on Wikipedia because it takes too long to get to the point.Listen, there is no difference in opinion in this case because as of right now, I am correct and the other user is incorrect. By the World Cup, the numbers could be changed to the numbers the user have posted, but as of today, the numbers are wrong. That's why I constantly told him to wait. I posted the source with the current official numbers that should be posted on the page. There has been no official announcement of the numbers changing. How is it a difference of opinion? Not to mention the user gave Anelka #19 on the basis of that's what he thinks Anelka will wear at the World Cup. Joao10Siamun (talk) 04:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it offline...

Hi Slim. People on the CC are, unsurprisingly, skittish because of a long on- and off-wiki campaign (of which Solomon is a part) to derail the climate change articles. It is a minefield. But one way of handling a minefield is to step carefully. Unfortunately, you have not done so. In this particular case, you attack William, while making unfounded claims about Solomon, who has viciously and wrongly attacked him in his column. William's alleged COI has been discussed and dismissed at WP:COIN before. If we allow any public figure to create a COI by writing about a Wikipedia editor, WP:NPOV goes out of the window. And I take exception to the "always involved in snark or insults" part. What happened to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? More constructively, I suggest we collapse everything from your comment on 21:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) to Guettarda's made 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC). It's off-topic for the talk page. Do you agree? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMC clearly has a COI in relation to that article, regardless of who has decided he does not. The only body able to make that ruling would be the ArbCom, but I'm guessing that any sensible group of uninvolved Wikipedians would conclude that he has a COI. As for Solomon, the only thing I said about him is that he had made no effort to edit William Connolley (at least, there's nothing to suggest he has), unlike Connolley trying to edit Solomon's BLP.

I don't agree that this is off-topic for the talk page, and I'd prefer to discuss it there, if more needs to be said. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are wrong. It does not help us to improve the article. But as you wish. I'm off to bed. But let me repeat: What happened to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're saying I'm wrong about. The problem with COI is that the issues related to the contributor and issues related to the content can't be separated, because they infect each other. That's one of the reasons COI should be avoided. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to your "always involved in snark or insults" snark. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I see it, Stephan. It's always WMC, KimDabelsteinPetersen, Guettarda, and you. A discussion involving one often means the other three arrive (for the most recent example, see Talk:Lawrence Solomon#Coffee merchandising), and the exchanges are rarely constructive and civil. They usually deteriorate instantly into snark, attacks, and lots of ums and nopes and ughs. I'm sorry to be so frank, but that's my honest perception. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SV, I think your perception on this is largely correct, and many would chime in to agree. However, I would like to note that in my opinion Stephan is also correct to allege that there has been a lengthy "on- and off-wiki campaign" to discredit WMC (and other editors like him) and derail the climate articles. But, WMC is not doing himself or his cause any favors with his bad behavior, and it is true that there is a large clique of editors engaging in battleground tactics due to this entrenched conflict. Sadly, the only way to break this pattern is to discipline both sides. Viriditas (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing the onwiki dispute reflects the offwiki one. I read someone today, possibly Lawrence Solomon, arguing that science relies on the free flow of ideas and that there's a perception that it's absent in the real-world CC dispute, which is partly why people are having difficulty trusting the science. I don't know whether that's true, but it seems clear that it's absent onwiki, where anyone who's not on-message is attacked. I don't know whether that's happening on both sides. So far I've seen it only on one side, though my experience of those articles is limited. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 01:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, no matter how you see it, WP:NPA still applies. Secondly, I've been editing these articles for several years, and I have most of them on my watchlist. I assume that is the same for WMC, Kim, and Guettarda. Thirdly "disagrees with me" is different from "snark or insult". I don't think I've made any comment on you. In this instance, I have commented on one of your claims. Fourthly, "polite and constructive" is different from "I get my way". To be honest (and this is a comment on you, hopefully polite and constructive), I've not seen you defend many of your contentious edits with substantial arguments on the subject. Instead, you complain about the hostile climate and request enforcement against other contributors. I find that deeply offensive and unconstructive. Having a pleasant editing environment is desirable. But having correct content is a sine qua non, at least for me. In contentious areas, the best mechanism we have for that, short of assigning competent censors, is open debate. Here is a deal: I try to refrain from "ums and ughs" (sorry, I need my "nope"s) if you start to argue the substance instead of the persons. In fact, I'll give you my half upfront (feel free to buzz me on my talk page if one slips by, and I'll refactor). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's the problem. You personalise things. When I pointed out that your edits to Singer were plagiarism, you simply attacked me. It wasn't until several other editors weighed in, that you desisted. You can't dismiss people just because they disagree with you. Guettarda (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not attack you, and my edits were not plagiarism. This is the kind of smearing I'm talking about. The minute someone disagrees with this small group, the knives are out. It's not just opposition or constructive criticism, which is expected. It goes way beyond that, and it happens instantly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda, how is it "personalizing things" to observe the lack of a civil, constructive, and welcoming editing environment? After all, Guettarda, I'm on your side on this topic, yet I agree with SV's observations and experiences. Coming here to make further accusations against her only proves her point. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while you and other climate editors might only have the best interests of the articles in mind, the working relationships between editors is what makes this place function. Viriditas (talk) 04:09, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos, I found WP:GANG interesting reading. Where it falls short is in dealing with the situation where there isn't actually a tag team, it just looks like there is one. ++Lar: t/c 18:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can I learn your thoughts on WP:SINGLEEVENT?

I created a page for İbrahim Bilgen who was a Turkish politician, a founder of the main opposition party (Virtue Party), he joined Felicity Party after Virtue Party was banned. He was a candidate for Siirt (population :250000) mayor, but he was not elected. He was also a candidate for Parliament in 2007 and he was not elected. In Wikipedia, there are pages for elected Turkish mayors, like Hüseyin Kalkan, Cemil Şeboy. I think that many of Turkish politicians including non-elected politicians do not have pages, as there are not many Turkish Wikipedia editors. There are pages like Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, Ben Konop in the Wikipedia, so I think we can create pages for non-elected Turkish politicians. Since he was one of the activists died in MV Marmara ship, the other editors say that by WP:SINGLEEVENT, the article should be deleted. Besides the events at the ship, he is a renowned politician in Siirt. What do you think? Kavas (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Kavas, I'm not familiar with the background. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN3

FYI [1] - I blocked the user based on a WP:AN3 report before I saw your note there. If you reach an understanding with the user and want to unblock, please feel free. --B (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.
Message added 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—S Marshall T/C 01:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

France national football team

You have frozen an inaccurate version of the page. France is currently ranked 9 by FIFA, and this needs to be changed in the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 07:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection expires shortly, Kevin, so you'll be able to fix it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected early so you can sort it out. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cumbria shootings

Hi Slim, Why did you SP Cumbria shootings? There's little or no vandalism and there's been good IP contributions. Thanks. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MB, there was a request on RfPP because there had been some problematic IP editing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Slim. Looking at it and there'd been no more than a couple of ip vandal attacks. In fact there'd been some account editor vandalism reverted by IPs. I think the requestor was asking for protection simply as a precautionary measure, whic I believe is not policy. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my response on RfPP. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PBSKIDS

Hello SlimVirgin, thank you for your contributions on articles related to PBS Kids. I'd like to invite you to become a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject PBSKids, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of PBS Kids articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks!

Daniel Razon

Hi, SlimVirgin. Sun Star is a reputable media company that publishes regional newspapers in Bacolod, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Cebu, Davao, Dumaguete, General Santos, Iloilo, Manila, Pampanga, Pangasinan, Zamboanga. The website mirrors the printed version. However, I do agree with your reversion, because an article that has nothing but information on a person's persona non grata status in his hometown is a sight for sore eyes. I will try to add more content to the article in the near future. Thanks! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Razon article...again

Hi SlimVirgin, I've added both Daniel Razon's Broadcast Career and his alleged "Persona non Grata" status. Kindly click this for my revision and check if it is okay for you. Thanks a lot!IronBreww (chat) 04:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find it very confusing, to be honest. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copying this to the article's talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 04:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...quite so, any ideas on what should be done? I've included both positive and negative facts about the person. Thanks! IronBreww (chat) 07:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:SMcCandlish

I was going to ask SMcCandlish if he wanted to be nominated as an admin after seeing efforts at Kevin Trudeau. But looking at the previous RfA's I had to cancel that notion for now. If not for the canvasing, do you think SMcCandlish would have succeeded in the 2nd RfA? - Roy Boy 17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Roy, I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I would oppose based on situations before that RfA and since then too. I'm sorry. That doesn't mean my opinion's written in stone, of course, but that's how I feel at the moment. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bible and Animal rights

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Cor%209&version=NIV

The website above has the section titled "Rights of An Apostle", and Paul cites the "right" of the Ox to eat whilst it treads the grain. You don't need a Scholar to say that Jesus is depicted as a lamb or the Holy Spirit as a dove, when there are Church stain glass windows showing this. Nor is interpreting the Bible passage:

"The next day John SAW JESUS coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

As meaning that Jesus is like a Lamb, too controversial I think!!!! Gabr-el 20:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gabr-el, if you read our sourcing policies, WP:V and WP:NOR, you'll see that we need sources, preferably secondary sources, who discuss the bible issues in the context of animal rights. The passages you're citing have nothing to do with AR, which is a very particular, and fairly modern, concept. If they do, you need to find a secondary source that says that explicitly. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you not see the circularity of your argument? You are assuming that animal rights are a "fairly modern concept", and therefore dismiss the possibility and come to the conclusion that the Bible, being ancient, does not deal in any way with animal rights.

Of course, this is not only circular reasoning, it is a red herring, since the first paragraph is about the way animals were views in the Old World, not necessarily animal rights. At the moment, a very narrow point of view of the Bible has been presented; one "scholar" and one Bible passage about the oft-abused dominion Adam has over animals showing no good thought for animals.

What kind of a scholar would I need to cite for images showing Jesus as a Lamb or the dove as a holy spirit? I showed via the reference section self-evident images. I am not making claim; just simply citing it as it is.

That's kind of you to cite NOR and V rules of wikipedia; I'm quite familiar with their massive ambiguity, so if you would please show me exactly how, or where it says that what I am doing is inappropriate? Jesus is respected in the Ancient World according to the NT, and Jesus is represented as a lamb - only this point is being brought up.

The angel of the LORD asked him, "Why have you beaten your donkey these three times? I have come here to oppose you because your path is a reckless one before me. [c] 33 The donkey saw me and turned away from me these three times. If she had not turned away, I would certainly have killed you by now, but I would have spared her."

34 Balaam said to the angel of the LORD, "I have sinned. I did not realize you were standing in the road to oppose me. Now if you are displeased, I will go back."

The man hits the donkey and has "sinned". It's very self-evident. So please either be more specific, rather than simply citing two Wikipedia rule pages.

Thanks. Gabr-el 21:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to copy this to the AR talk page, as it's better to have the discussion there. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Man on the Moon II: The Legend of Mr. Rager

Hey could you speedly delete this page as it is holding up a page move. There is no need to restore any of the reversions as they were all copy and paste moves from Man on The Moon II: The Legend of Mr. Rager which is the page I want to move. STAT -Verse 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 21:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that.

I have encouraged the blocking admin, or any others, to revert your block if they disagree with it. I feel comfortable on principle. Thanks again. Get some sleep.

Anthony (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock of Anthony

You claim on ANI that there is general agreement for unblock, yet I see no evidence for this. Also, do you think it is wise to unblock when you are involved in a dispute with me at Acupuncture? Verbal chat

Just to make clear, I have no problem with him being unblocked but it should be made clear that his behaviour was unacceptable. Your summary on ANI doesn't make that clear and invokes a non-existent consensus. Verbal chat

Verbal - can you please consider this closed and walk away from it? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, please move on. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec to Verbal) I wasn't aware that I was in a dispute with you at Acupunture. The only thing I've done there is remove the pseudoscience category, and I didn't have either that or you in mind when I asked for the unblock. The only thing I had in mind is that I've been generally impressed by how patient an editor Anthony is, and I therefore felt bad for him that he'd been blocked for something that I see as very minor. Please let this drop, Verbal. It really is something out of nothing. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I ask only one thing, can you please make clear to Anthony that he wasn't unblocked because his behaviour was acceptable. A short note to that effect on his talk page would be more than acceptable. Thank you. Verbal chat 09:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you're right about acupuncture, sorry about that - I misread :) (although I disagree with you there). Verbal chat 10:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's clear that the block was for the repeated reference to Verbal as a "fool", after being warned by two different admins, with talk access removed for repeating the slur in the unblock request, I have no objection to the unblock. I probably would object if, like Giano, you thought I blocked for the "libelous" comment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

talk page format issue again

Hi SlimV, is it my browser or your format/code or whatever they call it/ Your talkpage is growing beyond the visible screen again and has a slider at the bottom. Sadly my computer skills are not up to repairing your code, perhaps someone else will have a look or you might replace it with some new format to solve the issue, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had that once before, and it was because someone had posted a message with a gap at the beginning of the sentence. I don't know the technical term for it, but it seemed to cause what you describe, so I've just fixed the latest example of it. Please let me know if it's better now. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the trigger for inline preformatted text, but I try to avoid using it. I could be wrong. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that has solved it, but I have never seen that cause the same issue elsewhere, but at least you know how to correct it, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

congrats

Hi SV, I have been away from Wiki for a while recharging energy/focusing on work but I have to say you've done a fantastic job with the Fred Singer article, and although I haven't followed all the disputes, I can imagine what you've gone through in order to get the article into such an improved state. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex, the feedback's much appreciated. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your protection of User:Abd/Response to Verbal

[2] Per request, I had blanked the page, and that should have been that. However, Verbal made repeated requests that the page be speedy deleted, and all these edits led to a need to put a link on the page to the history showing how the page looked when the case closed, otherwise it took some searching through history to find it.

Verbal then revert warred over this. It's my page, in my user space, I wrote it, and it was submitted to ArbComm, and, as with the original RfAr Evidence page, the blanked page then should contains a link to history for convenience of someone wanting to review it. It is not an attack page, it is a response to Verbal's charges against me, and I don't understand what is considered so offensive by Verbal, except possibly reference to what might appear as claims of bad faith in his evidence, which was, compared to all the other stuff flying about then, relatively minor.

This wasn't just prepared to be presented in a future RfAr, it was prepared as a response during the actual RfAr and was linked from there. The current blanked RfAr Evidence page is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley/Evidence, and the link to the subject page can be seen at [3]. On the attached Talk page, I have requested correction of any errors. If an error is found, I would add a note to the page before reblanking.

There was no requirement that this page be blanked, I blanked it as a courtesy. I am notifying you because you protected the page at Verbal's request. With my last restoration of the link, I had an edit summary, "See Talk." Verbal has not discussed this, and has not pointed out any errors or "attacks." As it is my evidence page, I should have the sole right to edit it, as would have been routinely enforced during the RfAr. Tnanks, and sorry to bother you, I'm not requesting any action from you, this is just FYI, unless you independently determine something. --Abd (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same spirit, please note that this page was a draft and was never presented (Abd was well over the word limit by then anyway). Were it presented I would have responded to the incorrect statements it is chock-full of. It would be nice of Abd as the case is over and the page was never presented to volunteer it for deletion. Please don't feel a need to respond. Verbal chat 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the background, so I don't know what's at stake, but I'm wondering whether it matters either way. The page got 43 hits in May, the bulk of them on one day. Verbal, there's a strong presumption in favour of allowing people to say what they want in their user space, and we only interfere when it's something really inappropriate. I won't point out all the user pages that have something irritating about me on them. :) I'd therefore urge you to let Abd host his page with the links.

Abd, perhaps to keep the peace you could blank the page with an edit summary such as "courtesy blanking: please see revision dated X for a link to the contents." Then when feelings aren't running so high, perhaps you could re-consider Verbal's request to have it deleted if it still concerns him. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, SlimVirgin. You have new messages at A p3rson's talk page.
Message added 03:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

A p3rson ‽ 03:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chitpavan

SlimVirgin - Thanks for the feedback regarding the page mentioned in the subject line. I will stick to the three policies you mention - Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view by eliminating original research and maintaining a neutral viewpoint. However, most of what I added was directly based on verifiable facts/books/papers published by well known authors. I will try to find even better/universally acknowledged material and re-post. Sorry for the trouble and I appreciate the feedback. Authentickle (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Authentickle[reply]

The problem is that it came across as racist, and was written in Wikipedia's voice. If a certain group of people really is regarded in a certain way (rightly or wrongly), we would need very high-quality sources who discuss it from an academic perspective. But we can't add it as though it's factual, and even with the best sources I'd urge caution because so much depends on tone. Also, other points of view need to be added at the same time. It would make sense to discuss it on talk before restoring it. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 03:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfPP

It's a "feature". (As my tech guys tell me whenever I complain about some bug in the system) If you have the page open, and you're pressing buttons, there's no notice someone else has protected the page while you were inputting protection settings. I can handle an indef protection there, so I've restored your settings. Courcelles (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Courcelles. I've left a suggestion on the RfPP talk page. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 09:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Exoculture

The article Exoculture has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

term's use is very limited, notability isn't explained.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Prezbo (talk) 09:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bullmastiff

In response to your comments on my page regarding this article, if you read the talk on that page there were a lot of complaints about that users images so I attempted to change them however he keeps changing back BootsSiR (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update - the user is refusing to discuss the changes on the article discussion page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BootsSiR (talk • contribs) 14:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karabakh Khanate