From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is Chrislk02's talk page archive for the months of July and August 2008. Please do not edit anything on this page, but direct all coments to my active talk page. Thanks!


July 2008


genuine question: how exactly was the sentence POV? :S ninety:one 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the source cited is a general act (not explicitly applying to only this force). By writing it the way you did, it disparaged members of the force and effectivley called them criminals for calling themselves police officers. That is an interpretation of the act/law/whatever it was and wikipedia is not here to interpret it. We can state that they are a constable service and not technically a police service that is fine but do it in a respectful/polite/NPOV manner instead of a fairly offensive manner. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
ok, if that's how you interpreted it i'm sure others will have taken it even more so, though i didn't intend it like that. but now we're just descending into edit warring on the article... :( ninety:one 18:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Its cool, I am working on it now. I am trying to find a way to get both sides of content included as they both have valid perspective (and sources) in my opinion.Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that you are adopting a rather unhelpful attitude in some of your edits to the WPP article. You are fully entitled to your opinions about what is or is not encyclopedic, but your views are not any more valid than the views of other editors. Your sweeping deletion of whole sections (such as vehicles or staffing) would be better discussed on the talk page first. I strongly disagree with your views on the staffing section, for example. These sudden sweeping edits are often the cause of edit wars, and I'm sure we would all agree that those profit nobody at all. Could I urge a little more restraint, and conversation, please? Many thanks. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 18:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are by all means welcome to revert my changes and start a discussion on the talk page. I believe strongly in WP:BOLD and at times WP:IAR, especially on small niche articles where there are only 1 or 2 editors who watch it/pay attention to it. The removals are based on my experience with this project, more specifically, WP:NOT and other similar areas of this project. I personally could care less about whatever police/constabulary service it is. Do you see any other police forces listing all of their officers/vehicles? That is often a good measure for the appropriateness of a section, especially for something like police services where there are many articles out there. If you choose to address this on the articles talk page, I will gladly repond there as well and attempt to get further input from outside editors and wikiproject law enforcement. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Based on your questioning of my actions, I have started a thread at wikiproject law enforcement to get other eyes to look at this and see if they agree or disagree with my actions. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. As you suggest, above, I shall say more on the article talkpage, rather than here. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Grand Officer

Thanks for your question. I have responded on my talkpage. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I don't have a photo on Wikipedia, but you can see me dressed as a Grand Officer on my eBay page. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 19:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Husond, it is exactly what I was looking for! I really needed the smile, thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVIII (June 2008)

The June 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Cromagnon (band)

Why, herro there. Noticed this article had been baleeted. I was wondering if there was any way to restore it. If it could be restored, I'm sure I could find a way to cite significance. For instance, a song from their first album "Orgasm" was recently covered by Japanese Avant-Garde band Ghost, as can be read Here. The verdict, senor? Albert Mond (talk) 4:43, 8 July 2008 AD.

Please explain

You have put two warnings for disruption on my talk page. I understand that the first one was for providing incorrect diffs for 3RR, for which I have duly apologized. It was my first instance of reporting a 3RR violation and since it is less than a month that I have joined the wikipedia, I really made a mistake identifying what contitutes a real 3RR voilation and how to generate these diffs.

But why you have put in a second warning. I am not beating a dead horse. I have already stepped away from the discussion. I am complaining about 'name-calling' and threatening which amount to bullying. I have a right to report if some one is abusive to me. I am sure that if a novice like me would have shown such kind of behaviour, you would have blocked him or at least warned him. Dab is abusive towards me and is still threatening me, why shouldn't I report. Why should I suffer this kind of behaviour from any one.

I am still not clear how and what mistake I made that deserved me a second warning ? Please explain so that I can understand my mistake and be able to work constructively Sindhian (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been addressed both at AN and your talk page. Just drop the subject and MOVE ON. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to explain it.

Perhaps there is more to than that I have noticed, but it's such a short block I suppose it's not all that important. Thank you for taking the time to explain your actions.futurebird (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Allegations of apartheid deletion notification

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Chinese apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Greg James

What... I'm right, i even said how to check. Btw, chances are I'll have a different ip tommorow, and unless it comes up again on the radio, I'll have forgotten about his gf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

List of French words and phrases used by English speakers

Hello, I'd like to be explained why the recent modifications I made on this page were undone. I think it is either because I created another section "Not used as such in French", an intermediate between what is used equally in French and English and what has no meaning in French, but in this case, why didn't you revoke everything I did since then? Or maybe it is because I offered a better translation of the phrase "je m'en fous" (I don't give a fuck / a damn): the anterior translation only said that it was "somewhat" rude, which is wrong. It is extremely rude in French, unlike the expression "je m'en fiche". In which case I wouldn't understand why the other edits were also undone and not this one alone. Also, I know I didn't offer an explanation in the edit box for every edit I did, but it is simply because in almost all the case I'm not editing the text, simply changing it from one category to another and it becomes boring to repeat time after time that I'm doing that. Last, I checked every expression I wasn't 100% sure (mostly in the online dictionary of the Académie française) so I'm pretty sure that all the edits I did are accurate.

If it is something else I did wrong, please do tell me so that I may know and correct my behaviour. Thanks for your understanding. (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your concern. Part of the reason I removed my comments was that I recognized that my language was a bit harsh (the accusation of edit warring was particularly not an assumption of good faith) and because halfway through I remembered the operative words more than three. In any case, this was a minor dispute and I thought it unfair that the editor be blocked for (what my assumption of good faith on his part told me) reverting the removal of content that he felt would be a contribution to the article. I felt that he had been blocked too soon after being warned of edit warring (since I assume that most new contributors have never read WP:3RR) and was being unfairly warned for vandalism (and again, what I saw as an honest attempt to contribute was clearly not edit warring in my perception). All I wanted was for the whole thing to slow down so that there might be some sort of discussion on his talkpage, but as he was blocked before that could happen (I also assume that they don't know that they can edit their talkpages while blocked, but I don't know if it tells you that as I've never been blocked) I felt frustrated as something I felt could have been avoided. Oh well.

I apologize that the manner of addressing my concern was not quite appropriate (i.e. demanding an apology, etc.). —  scetoaux (T|C) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

A well-deserved award

Wikipedia Motivation Award Wikipedia Motivation Award
For being a positive and motivational factor for users like myself and others. In my early days, you were patient and a help to me, and you've been that way with other Wikipedians. Thank you for your kindness and ability to motivate new/ish Wikipedians. You deserve this. Acalamari 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow! Thank you! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You are very welcome! Acalamari 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

OTRS Request

Chris, Any chance you can help please - User:Russavia has added a number of images of russian airliners for example Image:Aeroflot Tupolev Tu-134 - CCCP-65976.jpg. Release has been given through the OTRS ticket system (all with the same ticket number 908726) but it has been added by the originator when the image was uploaded. I am used to seeing the tickets added by an OTRS volunteer after the image has been loaded. I presume WP:AGF but is there a way of checking the permission. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will check it tomorrow when I get into work. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 01:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I am looking into it now. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done - OTRS ticket is valid. Based on the picture in the link provided and the author of the request it is a valid release. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. MilborneOne (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


I don't think profanity should be considered encyclopedia type scholarly material, it isn't necessary to have every profanity someone says incorporated in wikipedia content, in my opinion, especially if this place is trying to copy the encyclopedia purpose. you should stop allowing unnecessary profanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.


J.delanoygabsadds 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Wikipedia logo (svg).svg Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! RlevseTalk 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIX (July 2008)

The July 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Computer science

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 09:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Bologna sandwich

I don't exactly understand the reason for the deletion without discussion. It was not a redirect. Bologna sandwhich was. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

ooops my bad. SOrry about that. It has been undeleted. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Comparison of P-51 variants: Thanks

Thanks for your quick work on deleting this page, I wasn't too sure that I had explained the reason for the request for speedy deletion properly (it was about 1.30 am NZ time...) Cheers!Minorhistorian (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Hi there! You recently deleted my page re: the above and I'm really not sure why. I realise that, where bands are concerned, you have to be alert however I'm not sure what makes this entry any less notable than, for example, any of the following:

As this was my first article I'd be really grateful for any feedback as I'd hate to make the same mistake in future. I'd also be grateful if you could reinstate the article as I really can't see any substantive difference between it and any of the links above. Thanks for your time! Stu Hudson (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Benjamin Covington

Hi, I noticed your edit summary of the above ("G3: Vandalism: dont think so") and just wondered what you meant! I nominated the article SPEEDY as it asserted notability ("he is the leading authority on everything, ever") so did not qualify for A7 - however, as he isn't the leading authority on everything, ever, I nominated this as G3 (vandalism) due to blatant misinformation. Cheers! Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 16:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it was a joke on him not you! It was A3 or A7 but the fact is I dobt he knows everything about everything. Sorry for any confusion! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah! I thought that might be the case after seeing the other edit summary (the first time you deleted the page) saying "idiot"! Anyway, the author has since written on my page regarding the sandbox so hopefully he's on the enlightened path. Booglamay (talk · contributions) - 16:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of 15 Minutes of Shame (Kristy Lee Cook song)

Hi Chris. I'm just curious about your A7 deletion of the above article. While I agree the article probably should be deleted, I'm just curious about your decision to speedy it. It has been discussed several times to expand A7 to songs and albums, but I have never seen any consensus to support the speedy deletion of these types of articles. The article did assert that the single charted, which is one of the (vague) criteria at WP:MUSIC. I believe there probably isn't "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article", but the info could have been merged into the Album's article (which is also currently AFD) or the Artist's article.

To repeat, I'm mainly just curious if the use of A7 has been expanded by consensus that I'm not aware of, or if there's something else going on that I don't know about. I PROD or AfD these kind of articles (and "XYZ's 6th Studio Album") all the time, and if CSD is a viable alternative for this, it would be great. Thanks! Livitup (talk) 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If you would like, I will undelete it and let you nominate it for AFD. I sometimes WP:IAR in situations like this. I have seen many similar itesm go to AFD with overwhelming consensus to delete. I am however not against undeleting it if you want to AFD or PROD it. Just let me know. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, thanks for offering though. Like I said, it would get deleted anyway. I was just more interested in how A7 was being applied. Most admins won't delete album or song articles on A7, since they are specifically excluded in A7. I was just wondering if something had changed. Thanks for the follow up. Livitup (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing has explicitily changed, I just ignore the rules sometimes. If it was in error, it can always be undeleted. Hope this helps! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


Regarding the CSD for Moto (magazine), it does appear the the text is GFDL text, according to the copyright notice on the bottom of the page. I make no claim as to suitability of the article, but I was looking the CSD over and the text looked legit to me because of the licensing on that page.  Frank  |  talk  16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I will re-review this. Thanks for the info. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I undeleted it and removed the speedy tag. It can be taken to AFD if there is a question as to the suitabilityl. Thanks again for pointing that out! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy "unspeedy" :-) Someone else can decide about AfD; I was just looking at it because it was a CSD. Cheers!  Frank  |  talk  16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris

One text emoticon for this log: O_O. Face-wink.svg Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 19:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Haha, lol. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Brent A. Wilkes

Brent A. Wilkes is the National Executive Director of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest and largest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States. His Wikipedia entry was amended upon placement of a Speedy Deletion tag and an explanation was posted soon afterwards on the talk page. Any further actions needing to take place were not specified, so additional information would be greatly appreciated, in particular, any suggestions as to how to recreate an entry for Brent A. Wilkes that will stay posted on Wikipedia and not be subject to speedy deletion. This is my first article on Wikipedia so I would be grateful for any advice you can provide. Thank you in advance for your help. I look forward to hearing back from you soon. Akeammerer (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to be a copyright violation from [1]. We cannot accept copyrighted material. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of GenICam

You deleted GenICam: 10:17, August 13, 2008 Chrislk02 (Talk | contribs) deleted(G11: Blatant advertising).

How could a page about an open standard developed by an association of a number of companies be "blatant advertising"?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neshom (talkcontribs) 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Because you are trying to promote it by touting its features (listing the tasks it solves etc). If you have reliable third party sources with information about it, it would likley survive as an article. However as it stands it has no assertion of notability and appears to be promoting it. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Help me

Please please please help me and dont delete my page. I am an intern for AgileCat and it was a big deal for me to put them up on this website. I was told by other users that if I had enough references, I should be ok. So I included many references to publications that they have been in. I kept the site neutral by just explaining what it is and clients it has had. I followed the guidelines as much as I could. It took me 3 weeks to do all of this. Can you either put it back up or tell me what to do to correct it because I really need this site to go up. It will not hurt anybody but me by it being up. Thank you. (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Image:DrScottMcGinnis.jpg

Whether it was or was not a candidate for deletion, is it not generally in good form to notify the uploader before deleting a file? I was quite suprised when I was notified by someone who was looking at my work in progress subpage that his picture had suddenly disappeared. In the future, please be sure to contact me prior to removing my work.  JAGUITAR  (Rawr) 03:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you own the copyright to that image? If so, please let me know and I will gladly undelete it. Otherwise, it does not qualify for fair use as it appears to be an image of a currently living person. These images are considered replaceable fair use (in most circumstances). The responsibility lies with you to select a proper license that is in accordance with wikipedias policies. If you need help with this please let me know. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Xilina Spathia

You removed my speedy delete tag on the grounds that the article had been nominated for deletion, but you did not vote on the deletion.

16:14, 13 August 2008 Chrislk02 (Talk | contribs) (4,767 bytes) (afd open.)

First of all, the fact that an article has been nominated for deletion does not insulate it from speedy deletion, if speedy deletion is otherwise appropriate. At the time you removed the db-band tag, the article had no supporters. Second, if you care about whether the article is deleted, you should vote. --Cbdorsett (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A.) I am well aware that I can close an article in AFD as speedy and do it regularly. 2nd of all, I have no strong feelings on this and chose not to particpate in the AFD (which is my right to do so). Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Scour

I disagree that Scour was blatant advertising qualified for speedy deletion. It was the history of a company which was arguably notable (see CNet results with Scour Exchange), with a recently created search company at that same site. It had been recently edited with advertising language solely about the latter company, but I reverted it. If it was reverted back, it would seem like an ad, but the article's history should have shown it could be reverted to a non-advert version. Galatee (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was written like a blatant advertisement, and wikipedia is not the place to promote recently created search companies. On top of that there appear to be no reliable third party sources, further supporting the deletion of this article as either a blatant advertisement(G11) or a non-notable group(A7). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't have had an issue with removing information about the recently created search company, or reducing it to an acknowledgement that the domain has been redeveloped by an unrelated search company. If you only saw this ("How is Scour different? Scour differentiates itself from other social search, ratings and community sites in that it..."), I can understand how you saw it as an advertisement of a newly created, non-notable company. However, until very recently, it was more like this, which is not written like an advertisement and provides claims of notability.
If you disagree with my last sentence, I respect your opinion and would like elaboration of your reasoning. I want to make sure we're on the same page, though. Galatee (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Marc Horowitz

I noticed you deleted Marc Horowitz as per CSD A7, which I nominated. I don't know if you noticed, but at the bottom of the article it noted that he basically dared people to create a wp page for him saying, that "It doesn't take much to get one." It may be worthwhile to protect the page from recreation for a few days, in case there are others trying to follow suit. I don't know how much of an audience this guy has. justinfr (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I saw that part it was pretty funny actually. I generally only protect pages from creation after 3 or 4 re-creations and if I am in an especially good faith mood sometimes 7-8 times. I will keep an eye on it as I will be on CSD patrol most of today most likley. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Righto. Sometimes I feel guilty reverting things that are particularly funny :) justinfr (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I am always glad to get a laugh. I sometimes use funny deletion summaries for the really bad articles. Yesterday some NN guy created an article claiming he knew everything about everything. I deleted with an edit summary, "you are an idiot." Also someboidy yesterday tagged jimbos userpage for speedy deletion. I removed the speedy tag with an edit summary, "I bet." Overall I get a lot of good laughs at CSD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ireland (name) - speedy delete

I see that you are an admin, so I don't understand what you are doing with Ireland (name). Has the request for speedy deletion been rejected? --Red King (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the speedy was rejected. The criteria you listed did not appear to fall into any of the valid CSD criteria. I figured the easiest way to handle it was leave it as the redirect (from DAB's move). You apparently have a problem with this action so you are welcome to prod it or take it to AFD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ironbridge Consulting

I had speedy deleted this article, but at the request of the author, I recreated the article and prodded it to permit improvements he had outlined.. Only then did I notice you had protected it,s o I removed the protection. If after 5 days it isnt improved with sources, it will of course be necessary to delete it and reprotect. I'll keep an eye on it. DGG (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool deal. Thanks for the heads up. I will follow up in a week. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Advocis

You deleted my article even after I flagged it asking for more time to develop it. This is not fair. I was accused of advertising but I don't work for this group and have absolutely no affiliation with it. I am an independent writer who writes about personal finance. In addition, a similar group in the U.S. warrants a page:

The organization, which may seem insignificant to you, was established through Canadian government legislation:

So why are people on Wikipedia so opposed to having an article on a Canadian national association of financial advisors that is responsible for education, designations and political lobbying activities? Pokey2009 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I am researching this now, give me a minute. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I undeleted it. If you could add more reliable third party sources it would be very helpful in ensuring this article does not get deleted. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will continue to work on it. Pokey2009 (talk) 19:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

(I saw the speedy delete flag up again. I have now deleted my own article in an act of hara kiri. Tired of the fight. Nothing in it for me. I just wanted to inform people and expand Wikipedia articles on Canadian investment industry. I had a whole list of articles planned on Canadian finance topics. Now starting to hate Wikipedia after only a few days of joining.) Pokey2009 (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It must have been a glitch. Looking at the articles history nobody had edited it since I removed the tags. Article looks OK. I have reverted your blanking of the page (assuming you did it in error). Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I had intentionally atempted to delete it cause I just wanted to give up. But if you think it's okay, thanks. Pokey2009 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Nobody has tried to delete it since I removed the deletion tags. You blanked the article after I had undeleted it and said it appeared OK. You can still request deletion if you want just let me know. I see no reason too as nobody is contesting it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: importance. Absolutely right it is "low" -- the mid that was there was just a glitch as I had copied the template from elsewhere and forgot the change it from mid to low. Pokey2009 (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

After the previous poster...

Mohammed al-Husseini, I made it quite clear that deleting an article after one edit (which even provided RS, while writing up other sources and articles on related topics, is out of line - especially after I took the time to use the hangon procedure - all it accomplishes is convincing me to simply remove any CSD without following protocol in the future. Please undelete the article so I can continue working on it. In the future, please exercise more discretion. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the article and I read your hangon information ojn the talk apge (which by the way did not address the concerns just attacked the editor who tagged the article [a good faith action]). The article did not in ANY WAY signify why the individual was notable making it candidate for speedy deletion under a7. I reccomend starting the article in a personal sandbox and moving it to the mainspace once work has been completed. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I copied the article to my userpace User:Chrislk02/sandbox4. Feel free to edit it here or do with it what you please. I will delete it from my userspace in a week. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What is not considered advertising when trying to post info about a company?

Hi Chris. I'm a huge fan of a pro skater who started his own compnay a couple of years ago. There has been a bio on Wiki for awhile about him too. In his bio, it lists his company, which does not have a page. So I tried to create one. I posted the founder, category and purpose of the company, but you deleted it. I linked to info about the founder, info about the company. I even had it on a discussion page, and another editor thought it would be okay to try posting it. Can you please specify what part of the article was "blatant advertising" as you put it? I truly don't understand, since there was no mention of promotions, prices, products or anything of that nature. Thanks HappySk8ter (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I would reccomend adding a blurb about his company into the end of his bio article (only with facts that can be substantaiated from reliable sources. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Maemo (operating system)/Archive 1 move


Thanks for cleaning up the mess at Talk:Maemo (operating system)/Archive 1. I'm trying to move Talk:Internet Tablet OS/Archive 1 over it, but I'm getting a protected-from-creation error. Another hiccup of the recent blacklist changes? Or could you make the move? Cheers. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 DoneChrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Scour

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Scour. 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. IlyaHaykinson (talk) 02:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of LUNIC

I created this page because there is a dead link to it from the Sellaband page...if this does not constitute being notable, why wasn't the link removed also? (Sellaband details were going to be added the LUNIC page, but it was deleted before they could be...I was trying to collaborate with the band on it...thanks...)Thathollie (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thathollie (talkcontribs) 12:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Conserve School

Hi, I am not sure I understand why this page was deleted. Conserve School is a new independent boarding school and the factual information on the site was similar to what one would see at the wiki sites for most schools. Please reconsider or provide me with more specific information on what the article needs in order to satisfy the relevancy requirements. The page was first created by students at the school and has been a great learning tool for them. Thanks for your help. Stefan.Anderson (talk) 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Couple of things, first off thank you for addressing your concerns. 2nd of all, it does not realy matter if the infoirmation is factual or not in this case, we need reliable sources to substantiate the article (hint, links to the schools site or sites closley affiliated with this school most likley do not count.) The purpose of wikipedia is not to provide a listing of all schools or even to primarily act as a learning activity for students, however to be an encyclopedia. Your article, as written, was written like an advertisement that has no relaible sources and no assertion of notability. In short for you to have an article you need to tells us why it is notable using reliable sources. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Chris, that makes sense. Would it be possible to restore the site so that the type of substantiation you are talking about can be added or will it be necessary to create a new article? There are a number of reasons why it is notable that can be substantiated with links to second party sources. I would appreciate the chance to use this as a learning opportunity for myself and give the article what it needs to be an appropriate encyclopedic entry and not an advertisement. Stefan.Anderson (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I put a copy of the article in a personal sandbox of mine located at User:Chrislk02/sandbox4. Feel free to work on it there. If you want a review of the progress drop me a line. I will follow up in a week and if no progress has been made, I will delete it. If there is anything else I can do to help please let me know. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Kasper From The K

Hi there, Requesting action on user Karlos1211. He has created the article Kasper From The K twice now, each time using copyrighted material from here. I'm messaging you because you deleted the most recent version after I gave it a CSD tag. He knows he's doing something wrong because this last time he removed the copyvio notice from CorenSearchBot without explanation too. That copyvio article is Karlos1211's only contribution. I suggest a block is warranted. Thanks... justinfr (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I will monitor this. copyright can be confusing to those who do not understand it, especailly if it is their content. I have no reason to assume bad faith at this point. If all else fails I will protect the article from creation. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! justinfr (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikify from March 2007

This is not empty. I know it had a tag on it, but need to check! Rich Farmbrough, 18:24 15 August 2008 (GMT).

ooooops, my bad. I thought I glanced at it and saw it was empty. Must have missed it. Ooooops. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any articles in this category? Did somebody clear it out? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

TravelMuse company deletion

Hi Chris, I was hoping you would help me understand your thoughts behind the G11 speedy deletion of TravelMuse company. We tried to follow all the submission guidelines and kept the description very neutral. Other admins seem to have reviewed it and enhanced it without major concerns. There are tons of other company pages on wikipedia listed in the [Travel websites category]. Some, such as SideStep, seem to occasionally be flagged as advertisement to be re-written but at least the community gets a chance to discuss and improve it. Could you please explain what was so unacceptable about this company description which is out of line with its peers? Please give us a chance to improve it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril4j (talkcontribs) 18:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I undeleted as it was questionable for speedy deletion. My apologies. There is no guarantee that it will not be submitted for deletion at articles for deletion. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Salinity gradient

Hi Chris, thanks for the speedy delete, can you help out with the fix? ,The page "Blue energy" (links) has been moved to "Salinity gradient" , that was succesfull, but ClueBot reverted the move, maybe if an admin would do the move?, Thanks. Mion (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thnx. Mion (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
You might consider filing a false positive report to cluebot. Just look at the revision history and follow the link to report false positives. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Is an option, but the page was blanked twice today (not on vandalism grounds, but for moving), so maybe it's better if cluebot stays on it (in general), and with your help, the workaround worked. Mion (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


How is the Bachman's article not notable and why did you have to do a speedy delete rather than allow for discussion? This article is about a company who has been in business for over 100 years, has a large presence in the Twin Cities, MN, and just recently lost a CEO to murder in China. This seems much more notable than articles about Menards or Cabela's or many other businesses which have articles. This is about the history of the company, not an advertisement. --Gnosbush (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am looking into this. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
based on the article it does not appear to meet wikipedias notability requirements. The references used are either the comapnys page or a page talking about the CEO (with an in passing mention of the company). The company appears (per the article) to only have 7-8 stores in a fairly limited market. Nothing cited asserts the notability of this company. Do you think you can provide reliable sources to show that this company is truly notable? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Puzzle Ribbon

This morning I was trying to link the Puzzle Ribbon page to the List of Awareness Ribbons page. Somehow, in the process, I ended up creating a redirect Puzzle Ribbon page. That page was deleted by another user (see my talk page). Now - the original Ribbon Awareness page has been deleted - and the redirect link is active. Can we please get the original Puzzle Ribbon page back? We don't need the redirect. I didn't mean to cause this problem. Thanks! CreatewithRenee (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done - I undeleted it. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC) speedy

Hey! Thanks for considering (and deleting) my G4 nom of another OOS article. The author came along and added a bit to the talk page (which didn't get deleted). Could I get you to undelete real quick so I can take it to AfD? Or not... either way... Cheers! -- Swerdnaneb 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Its ok, it is better that it stay deleted. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the response! -- Swerdnaneb 17:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Richmond (referee)

Hello there, I should have asserted notability in the article, but the person concerned is clearly notable. He has refereed international games and regularly referees at the top level in Scottish football. He was the subject of wide media coverage for his decisions in a Dundee United v Celtic game last Sunday. See SFA profile, criticism by Gordon Strachan, previous criticism by Stuart Lovell. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Cumulus Clouds

Can you please restore this user's talk page history you deleted. As the guideline says user talk pages generally shouldn't be deleted. Obviously there are exceptions if there's a good reason. Was that the case here? RMHED (talk) 00:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • That's funny, you did the exact same thing here. Should I try to be more covert about it, as you have, by moving it through several iterations first before asking for it to be deleted? And can you explain to me first what information you needed that was missing from that page and second why you're allowed to delete your talk page and other users aren't. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know it was a a case of U1 per WP:CSD. Is there a reason to restore it vs leaving it deleted? I did not follow up after the deletion. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 04:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm restoring it. Users who want messages off their talk pages are free to archive or blank them, but deletion is not normally an option as it quite severely restricts scrutiny. Anyway, the CSD clearly doesn't apply; this is neither a user page nor a subpage of a user page. If CC wants it deleted, he can try MfD. Mangojuicetalk 07:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
MangoJucice, thanks for looking into this. Sorry I did not get a chance to review this more thoroughly last night. Good call on the restore. When I see user tagged talk pages I assume they are trying use their right to vanish. I should probably make a note to follow up on such deletions in the future. Looking at this more closley it appears that CC may have been trying to hide his talk page history (which in my opinion is uncouth). Thanks again! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • So why did no one ask me first before leaping to those conclusions? And why did you restore it without having that information? And why did you not wait for me to reply before doing that? And could somebody tell me why they've decided to pursue this in the first place? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Transparency is important on this project, especially with pages like talk pages. By deleting the revisions it can be seen as trying to hide negative information about an editors past. I personally thought you were retitiring or vanishing or something which is why I deleted it in the first place. I guess a better question is, why did you want it deleted? If personal information had been disclosed or there was a privacy concern, you are welcome to request oversight.. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of the importance of transparency and, if it's important that I retire simultaneously with the deletion of that page, I will do that. In the meantime, I'm going to ask you to restore User:RMHED/ot for the same reason that my talk page was restored. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

←I have asked for a 2nd opinion regarding this. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I also asked RMHED (talk · contribs) [2] about this as well. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I see no problem with that page. There were warnings there, but cut and pasted from elsewhere if you look at the deleted history. Also, the previous contents of that page were moved from User space to User talk space, not the other way around. So that page, in particular, is okay to delete under U1; it's not a user talk page (or former user talk page) and also RMHED was the only editor. I do see that RMHED has moved the history of his/her talk page to User space, but I don't see that it's eben deleted. This is an irregular way of archiving, and should maybe be discussed. But it doesn't seem like a drastic problem. Mangojuicetalk 16:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, on deeper investigation, there is something strange going on here. RMHED moved his talk page to User:RMHED/ot, then moved that to User talk:RMHED/articles, made some subsequent edits to User:RMHED/ot and then tagged it for CSD U1. RMHED made subsequent edits to User talk:RMHED/articles, which makes it look like it's not a talk page archive, but it actually is. All of this can be discovered even by a non-admin [3] but it does look like a pretty clever way of making ones' talk page history hard to find. So this is pretty irregular... but it wouldn't be much better if User:RMHED/ot was undeleted. Mangojuicetalk 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

world snowboard day 2008

why did you cancel again my job ? what is the problem ? where do you see an ad...would make sense to read sometimes before to cancel the job of somebody else. I saw many subversives articles in wiki (included yours) and if my article is a ad it is for practicing a it wrong ? tell me please why you are so protective and conservative (normal for a US?) world snowboard day 2008 FORSANS remi (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I am just enforcing wikipedias policies (which by the way have been formed through community consensus, and are not arbitrarily being made uo by me). These policies are in place to ensure that only encyclopedic content makes it into this project, lest it be overrun with articles with no notability in every organizations effort to promote themselves through one of the most popular websites. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 13:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks for your answer but I don't see where this event after three years of existence worldwide is not authorized to be communiccated into an encyclopedic. just have a look into X games and tell me why this event is authorized ! then I will consider Wiki as a politic tool and not as an open tool for masses...--FORSANS remi (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable third party sources providing coverage of this event? That is the first step to having an article on wikipedia. If you can prove me to links from reliable sources, I will work with you on this otherwise there is no point. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for your answer. If you type "world snowboard day" into google, you will see thousands of page relating that event. is it enough or do you need something else precisely ? (again thanks for your helpbecause this is really a great event and there is absolutely no profit around, just a celebration worldwide !) , please tell me. here is by example the information appearing on important site [4] or [5] or [6] or [7] or [8] and so on in so many langages. --FORSANS remi (talk) 06:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

please Chris can you help as proposed before ? please FORSANS remi (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Jamie Manderson

I see you speedied this. Although not an admin I earlier removed the speedy tag as, IMO, there was at least an indication of why he may have been notable - a BBC story and a comment that he was the most convicted driover ever in GB. My understanding of the A7 speedy rules are that such a possibility of notability means it is not applicable for speedy and a prod or AfD should be used instead (although I accept it was likely to fail under one of these two processes). Therefore I'd be interested in your reasons for speeding this article. Dpmuk (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I Ignored all rules here and went ahead and deleted it. If you contest this deletion enough you are welcome to take it to deletion review. The article is unencylopedic and full of completley negative information regarding a living person (although cited), WP:BLP states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid;" the entire article read like a tabloid article (although cited). This is an article that it is better that it is gone now instead of later. Hope this helps. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Fair enouh - if you'd have quoted IAR in the deletion summuary I'd probably have been happy (as I doubt it's worthy of an article). As background an article I eventually managed to get to DYK status was twice speedied before I got a chance to improve it because the reviewing admin couldn't really follow what the original editor had posted (I admit it was poorly written). Since then I've had a personal view that many pages are speedied a bit too quickly and in doing so newbies are often biten so I often look at speedy candidates to see if there's any that shouldn't be there. This obviously didn't fall under the A7 category so removed the tag and was surprised to see A7 in the deletion log - happy to accept your IAR rationalle. Dpmuk (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have had the same thing happen (saved an article that had been speedied and/or tagged for speedy) before I became an admin. I very often remove speedy tags and request that if it is contested it be takedn to AFD or PROD, however due to the massive number of speedy deletions that happen it find it impractical to notify the authors of the deletion or that I removed the speedy tag (I do 99% of all of my editing completley manually without any tools to assist me). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Jamie Manderson was created again. I am not going to speedy it but will take it to AFD. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
ANother administrator agreed with my orignial speedy deletion decision and deleted the article before the AFD ran its cours (I strongly agree with this action). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
In many ways I'm glad it's gone. I never thought it was a cleat cut case hence the reason I queried it with you. It would appear that at least one other disagrees with me so happy to go with consensus and treat it as a learning experience (I'm still relatively new to wikipedia). Dpmuk (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

my info is lost

hi there! I just saw that you deleted my page...

I was wondering if you could just send me the source, especially the was the only place that i had my stats stored, i didn't save them anywhere else. i would really appreciate it if you could send that to me, as it was something i put lots of effort into.

i won't create anything else again.

Thanks, Vince.

Ryder73 (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What article are you talking about? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


it was just a fun page about myself that i had built...

Thanks, Vince —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryder73 (talkcontribs) 17:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a copy User:Chrislk02/sandbox4 here. I will delete it in a week or sooner if you let me know you are done. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

hey! That's perfect...thanks again.

Ryder73 (talk) 17:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


Do you think you are? Deleting my article?? WTF?!! Andy Oakers (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am an administrator, that is who I am. Your article was a nonsense article that did not meet our criteria here. I also reccomend you refrain from calling people names and vandalising articles. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Natural Child Project

Natural Child Project

The Natural Child Project is a well-established parenting and unschooling organization. Though the website includes a fundraising shop, the vast majority of the pages are comprised of over 200 professional articles and an advice column for parents, and a free art gallery space for children, which now includes over 100 images - possibly the largest children's art gallery on the Internet. We are well-known and respected in the attachment parenting and unschooling communities. Please contact me if you need more information.

Thank you,

Jan Hunt, M.Sc., Director —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janhunt (talkcontribs) 17:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This means what to me? Do you have any reliable sources that have covered this organization in depth (not just a passing mention). Can you prove to me you are notable other than what you say? (you also have an apparent conflict of interest here as well which is also frowned upon. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Our organization was founded in 1996. There are currently over 26,000 links to us on Google - we are very well-known in our field of attachment parenting. We have published 3 books: The Natural Child: Parenting From the Heart (paperback and CD), The Unschooling Unmanual, and A Gift for Children. The UN has used our art images for their Christmas cards. Please let me know more specifically what you are looking for. I would also like to know what you meant by "conflict of interest".

The reason I want our website in Wikipedia is simply to reach more parents and to help them to treat their children with love and respect.

That is not what wikipedia is for. Based on that, the deletion of your article was the right thing. We are an encyclopedia, not a place to get your message out. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 17:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm really confused. You have listings for many other similar organizations and periodicals e.g. Mothering Magazine, that have exactly the same goal we have, and also have online shops. I would really like to understand your guidelines better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janhunt (talkcontribs) 17:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Janhunt (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to read up on our policies here. Importantly on notability and reliable sources. Your organization may indeed meet the requirements for an article however the intention of this article would be to provide factual information that can be substantiated through reliable sources written in a neutral point of view. Based on what you told me above, your intentions for the article do not match up with this projects intentions. In short, wikipedia does not care what you stand for and how good it is, that is not what we are here for. If you can provide me with some reliable 3rd party sources we can work from there towards creating the article again. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You also have a conflict of interest in the creation of this article. This is frowned upon. You are welcome to request the article be created at the requested articles. If this is done, it will most likley get reviewed by an external editor (I have no idea how long this generally takes) and the article can be created. If this is done, the editor will do there own research and any negative information about your organization will also show up in this article (it will anyways, even if you write it yourself because once you write it anybody can edit it and add any cited information to it). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it will help to add that we have been mentioned in numerous books, e.g. The Paradox of Natural Mothering by Christina Bobel p.63 The No-Cry Sleep Solution (2002) by Elizabeth Pantley p.77.

19 books that reference the Natural Child Project are listed *here

Here is one of our book reviews on a major website (La Leche League Intl)

I hope this helps.

Thank you,

Janhunt (talk) 18:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I reccomend you start creating this article in a sandbox, for example User:Janhunt/sandbox1 is a great place to start. As you make progress through the articles creation, I will gladly provide insight as to what is necessary to meet our standards here. It sounds like the organization is notable, however the article will need to be written in a neutral/factual way (so that it does not promote your cause). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've started a page at the sandbox. Thank you very much for your help.

Janhunt (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You will need to reference the article. Information on this can be found atWP:REF. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 19:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean reference the books I listed? Or the article itself (if so, how would I do that?) Sorry for my ignorance, I'm new to this.

Thanks, Jan Janhunt (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you were writing a paper for a college class or something along those line. Keep in mine, there is supposed to be no orignial research. That means whatever is in the article should be attributable to a reliable 3rd party source (this does not include anything you are the author of due to the conflict of interest. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So I should reference the books published by The Natural Child with the publisher name and date? And delete the reference to my own book? Is there anything else that needs to be referenced?

Janhunt (talk) 20:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

speedy deletion of House at 536 Park

Hi. I hope you don't mind, but I've restored House at 536 Park as it's listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I realize it was a minimal stub at the time, but looking closer, its clearly worthy of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places is dedicated to ensuring that all of these have articles behind them. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure no problem! Thanks for catching that. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 12:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

David Banks Self Portrait - Your Interpretation of "Blatant Copyright Violation"

[You seem to have deleted this photo out of ignorance.] Arguably, the way I uploaded the photo may have been in ignorance as well. However, not only is the photo not copyrighted, it's being used with David Banks's full knowledege, permission and approval. This photo was from David Banks's website. David Banks has not copyrighted it. David Banks was actually with me when I added the photo, and he helped to decide which photo to use. The photo and the entire page were posted with David's supervision. Let me know how you want to verify this, assuming that you'll need verification. I spoke to David about this, but he's not a member of Wikipedia. I am representing him here. Thanks in advance. --Victorcoutin (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I will review this on monday. However, it is not my responsibility to ensure you provded proper licensing information per wikipedias standards. Nor is it my ignorance for deleting an image that was in a violation of our policies here. I just reviewed the final revision before it was deleted and no licensing information was provided. This is not my problem, however yours. Please ensure that all future uploads have all the required information. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
No need. You can make much, much, much better use of your precious time, I'm certain. --Victorcoutin (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
The fact is, I cannot read your mind and even the example you provided above is not enough. You stated it has his full permission and knowledge because he has not copyrighted it. Has david bands released the image in question under the GFDL or into the public domain? It does not matter if it is used on this project with his permission, it needs to explicitly be licensesd properly. That is why the image got deleted is you did not provide the required information and we cannot read your mind.Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 03:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


I recreated this one, as the current article wasn't quite promotional enough to justify a G11 speedy. I have prodded it as NN. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, cool deal. Thanks for catching that! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no assertion of notability at all and no citaitons. However I dont see this being a problem with being prodded. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
But "no assertion of notability" is not grounds for speedy deletion of a product article; web content, group, company, yes, but not product. A7 has limits. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Yea, I realized that which is why I agreed with prodding. My apologies if this caused any inconvenience. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of "Beacon Cottage"

Hi, you deleted my fledgling page on Beacon Cottage, which we believe was built by the Earl of Harrowby in 1795 as a hunting lodge / holiday home / love nest / something. I don't yet know all the details I am trying to build up the information.

Was this deleted because this is incorrect use of Wikipedia (i.e. recovering local history is out of scope) or was it because I did something wrong (publishing without much info, not justifying notability)? I thought it was a good thing to make my research public, and thereby benefit from collaboration from others.

OnTopOfTheHill (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am reviewing this. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You in no way indicate why it is significant, and there are no citations. Mostly it is just a date by date lsiting of events that happened to this particular location. The article was written was extremely unencyclopedic. Do you plan on fixing these problems by providing citations and re-writing it in an encyclopedic manner? Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Of Clarence Charles

Hi. Why did you delete the article on Clarence Charles? He is a FICTIONAL character. I never indicated in the article that he was a REAL character. And take into account all of these fictional characters as well:

If all of these are on Wikipedia, then why can't Clarence Charles be? Micky 1234567890123 (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the article he had brief roles in season 1 and has not had any important roles since then. Wikipedia is not a place to list every fictional character that has had a minor role in a telvivion series. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You also mention he is the father of another character? Perhaps a minor mention in the main characters article would be sufficient (with a redirect created to such effect). Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Image

Why did you delete the image of the book 'How to Win Every Argument'? Your reasons seem obtuse. Indeed, I wager that if you entered into a proper argument on the issue, you'd lose!

Hence, if you don't reply to this message soon, I'll assume you accept you cannot win the argument and will restore the image.Chris who reads books for a living (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the image in question? In response to your statement, "Indeed, I wager that if you entered into a proper argument on the issue, you'd lose!" I will gladly explain my reasoning if you can provide a link. I delete hundereds of images/articles a day all for failure to meet wikipedias standards. What most likley happened is YOU failed to provide relevant licensing/fair use information. We cannot read your mind so to ensure that copyright policies are followed, such images are deleted within a reasonable amount of time (usually 7 days). In the case it was recently uploaded, you most likley selected a license that is not compatiable with wikipedias licensing requirements for images to be uploaded. IF you can provide more details, I will gladly provide a more in depth review. Thanks! Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 22:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC) speedy deletion

Hi, your answer to the speedy deletion of the article was: "it is better that it stay deleted". Can you tell me why you think so since the article was completey re-written to become wikipedia conform. I think that OOS is notable enough (just see the list of links and reviews that were added, more than 20.000 active users, etc.) to get an entry in wikipedia, don't you think? Kind regards, Jason barrington (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)