User talk:Hairhorn

Welcome!

Hello, Hairhorn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Acceptableism

Please delete - I moved it to my user page - user:joseane/acceptableism thank you Hairhorm Joseane (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

sas daniels LLP

Hi Hairhorn,

I was wondering whether you would be able to give me a few tips on how I could create the sas daniels LLP page to allow it to stay on Wikipedia? There is a lot of history to this firm dating back to 1837 so obviously it has served a legal service to a large client base. I have found it interesting looking at the different stages of the firm from merger to merger which contains some very interesting regional history. I don't want the page to be promotional, I want it to be factual and interesting so am very keen on helping the page stay up on Wikipedia. I've looked at some other law firms like Clifford Chance and Norton Rose specifically and they've been exactly the same (if not worse!) as the version I wrote but are allowed to stay on here and can't understand why?

Many thanks if you can help Mikehenry85 (talk) 08:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Patti Schmidt

Actually, she was properly credited with a segment on Bob Dylan—I listened to it. Although, this is such a trivial piece of her career to list on an encyclopedia, so I don't object to it being removed. Just thought I'd pass you that news. +mt 04:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I have worked at CBC and I was careful to listen to clips of the show before making this correction, and I indeed heard Patti Smith, the singer. Was this aired on CBC's "Inside the Music"? Patti Schmidt generally only does intros and outros for that show. Check here: http://www.prx.org/pieces/20585-dylan-shelter-from-the-storm Hairhorn (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you're correct. Patty Smith hosted the "Shelter From the Storm" series with intro/outro by Patti Schmidt. The Smith/Schmidt thing is just a coincidence for the same show. Ahh, the detailed fact-checking ... +mt 19:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Spam bot

Thanks for the help with reporting the user whichphonesex.

Just for future reference, please use {{subst: when posting template messages. No big deal, but it's a little less strain on the server and so on. Sam Vimes | Address me 10:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Cheers! Hairhorn (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia intellectual

Well, it certainly made no sense to me so bob's your uncle. The words and some of the phrases, sure, but all the rest was all 'Huh?'. Lots42 (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, its quite understandable - what he sayd is that a Wikipedia Intellectual is someone who bases what he knows on Wikipedia articles, instead of basing it on books nought in stores. The second line is a characteristic for that group, noting that they know a lot of odd facts due to the detail in Wikipedia. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I too am puzzled. Good faith is good faith, but vandalism is vandalism. Hairhorn (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

This does not in any way qualify as vandalism, and believe me, i received enough notices about my overzealousness while doing vandalism patrol. The article itself is just a term the user made up, or some form of new word that came into circulation. Sure, it does not belong on Wikipedia, but that does not automatically qualify it as vandalism. Unless the user disrupts Wikipedia by creating the article over and over albeit being warned, this is considered behavior of a new account which does not know its way yet.

Hence, cut the user some slack! It is an account created today, so accusing it of creating vandalism pages on these kind of article is considered biting. If we need to give plain vandals 4 warnings before banning them, there is no need to scare an apparent good faith user away :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

point taken, although I'm not fully convinced you haven't traded overzealousness for underzealousness. Hairhorn (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Point also taken. Finding a correct balance between WP:AGF - WP:SPADE - WP:VAND is complex as they kind of contradict eachother. For now im basing my tagging on a perception of what the user seems to be trying. If a user tries to add a spam article that might only skim across G11 then it receives a speedy tag. If a users first edit is an article is a bad one with good intentions i prod it. But alas, since i only started trying that tactic recently, i make mistakes assuming to much good faith, as witnessed two posts above. With some luck this is just temporally, but ifi run into to much wrong assumptions of good faith ill just tag stricter again :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 09:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly of Initiative

I wish to draw your attention to this. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, I never said it was a good article...

As for the coatrack issue, though, there are plenty of articles on here explaining expressions used by only one side in a debate, eg: Irreducible complexity. The Monopoly of Intiative article, as written, is terrible and not at all neutral, on top of whatever copyright and forking issues there are. But, if I understand correctly, articles are deleted more on the potential of the subject matter to be a good article, and less on the article as written. But if it really is a term only used with reference to the European Union, then a redirect is probably the best solution. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Removal of my contribution

Hi, I got the notice from you on removal of Honda Advanced Technology. This is my first time contributing to it and I can understand the Wiki guidelines to remain factual and encyclopedic. But, I don't know how to achieve this without being opinionated! Hmmm... can you please advise? Createsparks (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

L'enfer c'est les autres

I love bilingual puns. And I've been having a few disagreements with TPH, maybe Sartre was really talking about otters after all :) (Watchlisting) - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

- I prefer "L'enfer, c'est nous autres"... Hairhorn (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

"Robert Culp Effect"

Hairhorn ... the creator of the page now specifically says "This is something I made up" and "I made this up" ... does this now simply make the page a candidate for speedy deletion? BobKawanaka (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not sure.. the only possible criteria I can see are "Patent nonsense" and "vandalism", and it doesn't really strike me as either of those. Also, it may fit into some of the non-criteria. Hairhorn (talk) 14:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cal Con

The AFD for Cal Con, which you participated in, was recently closed as no consensus. I have requested a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 26#Cal Con. -- Whpq (talk) 18:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree there was a poor case for the article and I said as much in the AfD. My issue, to the extent that there was one, was with the nomination as written, which to my mind didn't make a convincing case for deletion.Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The deletion review was closed just as I was writing a response. That's a little fast... Hairhorn (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Academic job market

Hi, can I ask you to have another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Academic job market. I have answered your point, and given my own views. If you still feel the same, that's fine, but you might just want to reconsider. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I added a little bit more for clarification; I didn't change my vote, but I softened it up a little. Hairhorn (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mehngarwal

I have not acted on this nomination because you did not notify the original author (on his/her User talk page) at the time you placed the speedy deletion request. I have placed the notice myself. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• I understand that it's courtesy, but not a requirement. Hairhorn (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Bilderberg Meetings

See Talk:2009 Bilderberg Meeting. Dougweller (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

re The Robert Culp Effect

 Done. Cirt (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy for WP:MADEUP

I was just thinking earlier today that I wish there was a speedy for something that was blatantly made up and local, possibly as a subset of A7, i.e. where there is no claim of notability. If you want to actually propose this, ping my talk page after you do so on the CSD talk page, and I'll put my two cents in. Gigs (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I just took on a new job, and besides I have an iron in the fire already over at WP:U... maybe we'll take it on when you get back. Gigs (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sara Northrup

You commented a few days on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Northrup. I have completely rewritten and greatly expanded the article (which is now at Sara Northrup Hollister). Your views on the new-look article would be very welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Into the fray

Initial response is negative: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#CSD_for_WP:MADEUP. I don't think this is going to go anywhere. Gigs (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I tried to throw in my bit. Hairhorn (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Removal

I don't mean to attack you or anything, but I've been trying to create a page for the artist that I am representing and it's been extremely frustrating to try and keep it as it is, and I really don't mean to violate terms and whatnot so can you please help me out Philip Guiver (talk) 13:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, pretty strange behaviour for someone who doesn't "mean to attack". Enjoy your ban! Hairhorn (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

KTM 300 MXC

Hi Hairhorn, I've declined some speedies of yours as it seems those KTM thingies were motorbikes. ϢereSpielChequers 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Lazer Helmets

Hairborn, thanks for rewriting the article. Its obvious i cant write them in english very well, but what i could do was to add it with my poor english, mark it as a stub and please another user from the community to correct it. So, thanks :). As per sharp, i added in order to verify company is notable, but if you judge its somekind promotional, and that other helmets too got 4 star, its okay this too.

Finally, as for what i added of being the 3rd producer, according to this phrase "The IMAG Group together with AGV, MDS, and LAZER is now the 4th worldwide producer within the sport helmets market", found here [[1]] i conlcuded to this. For sure, i found this phrase somewhere in wikipedia, maybe for AGV, if you need, i can take the time to find it again. Not for adding it to Lazer helmet if you judge it shouldnt be still there, but at least removing this phrase from the other article i found it here because as said "It's wildly unclear. ,by what measure? Sales? Units sold? Market penetration? ", so if it was unclear, it shouldnt be in the other article too. Regards.Psikxas (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. My only issue with the SHARP reference was that it didn't seem that relevant (it didn't really demonstrate that much). As for what's in other articles, a bad reference in one page is not a good reason to keep it in another. I'm sure there's an independent, third party reference somewhere that establishes Lazer's position in the market, you could try to dig it up. Hairhorn (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, no a misunderstoon. I didnt mean that because this phrase exists on another article, that it should exist here too. The opposite. That because the same phrase as here, exists on another article on wikipedia, that because we judge it shouldt, we should find then the similar article with the same phrase on wikipedia, and make better/more reliable the other article too. For now, i dont have time even dig these infos, or find the other article i mentioned, but ill do it and ill correct it.

Finally, i added the reference to SHARP, because as you may find, article deleted and they told me that i added a non-notable company, that noone else has written anything about this company in the past in order to belong here. But.xmm..it isnt too relevant? If you judge article will not be deleted again because of a non-notable company, leave it as you think.RegardsPsikxas (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

E63 AMG

I wasn't suprised that my article on the E63 would be tagged, I rushed it on the grounds that I would do editing over the next few days (I wrote it in less than 30 mins when it usually takes me 2 hours so you get the idea)so its not my best work (definetly not) and seeing as most of the information came from magazines I thought I might give their way of writing articles a try (none of my other articles follow a magazine like line), which as you can see hasn't worked out so well. Just give me a shout on my talk page if you have any suggestions; thnks! --Bismarck43 (talk) 01:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Tina Nguyen

Thanks for the courtesy tag. I enjoy reading all your feedback/comments even though you requested deletion on an article I created; with that said, I have a question that perhaps you'll be able to shine some light on for me. In short, there are many wiki entertainment base articles that have names that appear in numerous of other articles (cross referencing) and I have taken on the task to contribute and create articles on the existing names that appear red such as Tina Nguyen and others in existing wiki articles(ex: producers, directors, actors, studio execs); does that justify creating the article if it has notable internal links to several other wiki articles? I spend hours doing thorough searches to create factual articles and cross references in existing wiki articles that it could be frustrating creating an article and then having it nom for deletion. What I have noticed is that there are those that do not in good faith attempt to search and verify before placing judgement. Any insight would be most useful before I attempt to create anymore articles on living people that are acknowledged in more than one other wiki articles. Thanks for your time and contribution!

Furthermore, I see where I failed in this article in question; I relied on the internal wiki links to display other credits instead of including them in the biography. I have revised the article. Thank you tremendeously for indirectly showing and teaching me something new! I've debated this article in deletion due to the fact that all films mentioned excluding the Toback film, this actress is acknowledged on film reviews and articles; what that says from a film contractual point that she is credited as lead and/or supporting lead which warrants notable billing and press/promotional credit. I'm not sure a lot of contributors realize that it's notability/credibility for actors to be acknowledged as cast in film reviews and press acknowledges their character as relevant. BioDectective2508 (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I read up and figured it out. Thanks! BioDetective2508 (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Repeater (band) speedy declined

Hi Hairhorn. Just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion you suggested for this article, as I found there were some third-party sources writing about the band. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

deletion/mudpuppy

I read the "your first page" -- after the fact, sorry -- and your suggestion for deletion is reasonable. GregB (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A rare gracious response to a deletion request! Cheers! If you want to speed along the process, you can blank the page. Author blanked pages can be deleted right away, while pages for neologisms can take a week or more to get rid of. Hairhorn (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Would like to resubmit a deleted page

Hello. I created a page today (AEP Netilla Secure Remote Access SSL VPN)that was deleted. I think I understand why now. As you may be able to tell, I'm new to wiki editing/writing. I have posted a re-write on my talk page. If possible, would you please take a look and if it's now in compliance can I post it? Thank you. --Aqwertys (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not really up to me to say whether it meets the standards or not. The previous version (I can no longer see it) was deleted for being too promotional. The current version probably suffers more from concerns about notability (ie: why bother having an entry for it?) Hairhorn (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nipple Piercing

Can you verify whether the article being sourced is an actual article or a letter to the publication (like an editorial)? I've tried looking this thing up online and it keeps requiring me to sign in or pay money to read it. Thanks. --13² 13:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I've undone my talk page comments, I misread the article history, not realizing your edits were before mine, rather than after. The best I can get you for the article is the first 150 words. It's a letter, not a full research article. It only reviews 3 cases. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The reason I'm asking is because I'm concerned about original research issues. They only had three patients, it feels biased, and this appears to be an editorial (which isn't considered reliable, even if published in an otherwise reliable source). It also feels like it is making an awful lot of assumptions about the possible cause of these issues, even within these first 150 words. I wish I could read the whole thing, but I'm not going to shell out $15 to read one item. --13² 13:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is why my edit has the word "suggests" in it. This is a "research letter", not an editorial (there's a big difference in medical journals). My only real goal with the edit was to make Jane66's edit more neutral and to make the inline citation properly. I'm not trying to take sides in a debate. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I really don't feel like there's much of a debate. I just wanted to verify the source. I've tried to neutralize the statement further so that it doesn't feel like it directly contradicts the La Leche League (which is more reliable than this letter). --13² 13:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi hairhorn and thirteen squared. i have never edited wikipedia before and could not work out how to do the referencing properly, so thank you for fixing that. we do not want to suggest that every woman will have difficulties, but just bring the possiblity to people's attention. An editorial in a medical journal will be the opinion of the editorial staff or an opinion peice by an expert. Our research was published as a research letter, not an editorial and is still subjected to peer review. They did not accept what we wrote without critical review. Jane66 (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do letters really get peer review or just an editorial review? I'm just curious. Hairhorn (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi hairhorn, letters to JAMA and many other peer reviewed medical journals are reviewed by 3 reviewers. In our case the reviewers came back to us with suggestions and questions, and the letter was revised several times as a result, before finally being accepted for publication. They were initially cautious about the link between nipple piercing and difficulty with breastfeeding.If you would like further information about the process, look on the JAMA website instructions for authors.I am surprised this topic has stirred up such a lot of interest.Jane66 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

3A

This book does exist. It may not be world famous but it its known throughout schools in Ireland. But introducing it to wikipedia could make it known and educate people about it. It was created for the All Ireland Schools book writing competition and it came in 2nd place. I dont know if you shall find this information anywhere, but I do know there has been a [2] page made about this book. If you wish I could provide you with the pages address so you can check it out yourself? Butchre (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

But has it been published? Wikipedia is for documenting things that are already notable, not as a means of promotion. Hairhorn (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

yes, it has been published under Longford VEC.Butchre (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Eh? As far as I can tell, that's not a publisher. Unless you can come up with a book review, a page on amazon or some other bookseller, you'll have trouble keeping this page on wikipedia. Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a link to a VEC page on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vocational_Education_Committee . The book was created through The VEC in a competition. Can I ask you if you are Irish or Have Attended an Irish Vocational School? Butchre (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about me. You can read the guidelines you'll have to meet at Wikipedia:Notability (books). Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Beatmaking

I would like this page deleted please. I will use add the info to the page you redirected. Thanks. By the way what do the points in green font mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Staykept87 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The page is under dicussion for deletion, which normally takes a week. If you want it deleted faster, the only way is for you, as the original author, to blank the entire page. (It doesn't count if anyone else does it.) Then it will get speedy deleted under G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. (I have no idea what you're seeing in green....) Cheers! Hairhorn (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bryn Mooser

FYI... Also as Bryn mooser.  _{Guy M | Talk}  13:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Redirected to duplicate. This will either stay as a redirect or be killed off by G8. Hairhorn (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ICM Information editing

The information about ICM came from our own corporate communications department here at ICM. I have actually sent then the information on Neutral point of view and conflict of interest and cleanup to our Director of Corporate communications so they can start to adjust the article.

The information that was previously listed grossly misrepresented ICM as a company. This is why we are trying to add information now. We are new to this and are trying to learn how to enter the information correctly about ourselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryChun (talk • contribs) 16:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I understand that not all of the information was complementary, and shouldn't necessarily have been there. (Although you can't control your own press). Replacing uncomplementary content with promotional content is not the way to produce a neutral article; your text is bound to be deleted as promotional and unencylopedic, there may be copyright issues as well. I also hope you'll take the time to look at the conflict of interest guidelines. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. I/we are not intending to control or strong arm information regarding ICM rather more properly populate information about the company. I sent the conflict of interest guidelines document along with sytle guide to corporate communications and asked them to properly rewrite. I will update this as soon as I get a more approriate version. Sould not be more tha a day or so. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GregoryChun (talk • contribs) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hairhorn,

Here are my questions given the posting/deleting.

• How is the ICM page any more promotional than, say, the other talent agency pages (William Morris, CAA, etc.)?

• Isn't something better than nothing? The Departments section give readers an idea of the focus and the clientele. If the page is collaborative, and it is, shouldn't the information remain up and just modified by additional users with more balanced information? Isn't balanced the means and not the end, the definition of a collaborative page?

Thanks for any information!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by modernfrieze (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lou La Luz

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lou La Luz. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rape camps

Just a friendly note on Rape camps. After you prodded the article, the article creator placed a {{hangon}} tag on it. I've boldly assumed this was an attempt to contest the prod, and I've removed both the prod and hangon tag. Feel free to send it to AfD if you still think it should go. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Seems fair. Cheers back to you. Hairhorn (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Vachette/page marked for deletion

Thanks for the note and explanation. I'm a UT med school student and familiar with Vachette and have heard its president talk. He's very smart on path practices. I've done other Wiki work and thought he was worthy enough of an article, given how often he seems to address state and national conferences. He's not a public figure but within pathology, he's well known. I'll tone down the article and see if you like it. Thanks. --Toledodocstudent (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I though it was a borderline case, anyway. Hairhorn (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the hangon tag, and then removed the services section (okay, maybe too much). I took that information from the company's site. Maybe I should've just summarized(?). Later, I'll see if there are other (enough other?) references to Vachette or its president (Mr. Raich). Thank for the help. --Toledodocstudent (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The real sticking point for me was some of the languge, like " a nationally-renown[ed] and sought-after speaker"... too promotional. Hairhorn (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Will tone it down. Can't do it now but will later tonight. Does the hang on tag give me some time? --Toledodocstudent (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The hangon won't give you any tme at all unless you provide a reason for it on the article's talk page. Just putting a hagon tag alone does nothing. You might want to copy the article to your user page so you can work on it later, it may still get deleted. Hairhorn (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Biofascism

Just like me you supported the PROD for the article Biofascism. It was deprodded by DGG (talk · contribs), so FYI I instead did an AfD under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofascism. (A lot of acronyms today...) Tomas e (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Lila Rajiva

Hello, I see you assert that the nomination of Lila_Rajiva was improper. This is not so. The wikipedia page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion clearly says "Note that if you are editing under an IP address because you have not yet created a user account, you will not be able to complete the AfD process, as anonymous contributors are currently unable to create new pages (as required by step 2 of "How to list pages for deletion," below)." and advises IP users to add their reasons for deletion to the articles discussion page, which was done when I nominated it. I ask that you remove your speedy keep now that I have informed you of your incorrect assumption. Thanks. 74.237.158.41 (talk) 23:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see your comment on the talk page. But you have still failed to finish the AfD. There are three steps, only one cannot be completed by IPs, see WP:AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Motto

thank you for your reply. I am in the process of editing the article. thank you for the reply.Thank you so much for your reply. --BlueLankan 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha, Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I put the title in the english. also am doing a research in getting the more information for the title. please donot delete as of now. thank you. --BlueLankan 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Good luck with it. I'll leave it alone for now, but I can't speak for others. At the moment it simply duplicates verbatim information found in other articles. Hairhorn (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You saw that too, huh?

Just did a google search and was about to tag it. HalfShadow 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Tag what now? Hairhorn (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New user talk page

Hi Hairhorn, while welcoming new users I found this talk page User talk:Majorie4m. Would you mind taking a look? Shinerunner (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Gone before I saw it. Apparently someone else didn't like it, either. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A most nonsensical post.

Hello, Hairhorn. My sincerest apologies for the inane and ridiculous post on Kant's page. You said, "the only thing worse than vandalism is unimaginative vandalism." But unimaginative vandalism is vandalism nonetheless, however low a form of it it may be; nonetheless, and I didn't decide on anything more complex- just the necessary minimum to be caught as soon as possible by a one such as yourself. I do thank you for changing the post, which was essentially nothing other than my plan to determine just how efficiently wikipedia works with posts of such a kind. I must say that the revision came quite soon, and I was impressed. Excellent work on your part for blocking idiotic, immature comments (and witless wordplay) on wikipedia's important pages.

Thank you very much for reading my comment on your page. I do hope you respond.

Dantesqueman (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact it took 19 minutes, which is a while. I'm sure you can think of a more productive experiment to run.... Hairhorn (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies.

Of course. That was the only one of its contemptible kind. I was a fool, no better than most who post ridiculous comments on wikipedia, (and they with the singular intent of harming it). Again, I apologize for the time I took away from you and to the general population for the harm done. Not least of all to Wikipedia itself, and its credibility as a source of authentic information. Thank you for your work, and I hope you can accept my apology. Dantesqueman (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Sandy Hott

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Sandy Hott has been removed. It was removed by Phil Bridger with the following edit summary '(remove prod tag - passes WP:ATHLETE by competing in world championships)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Phil Bridger before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Removal of PROD from MFTU

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to MFTU has been removed. It was removed by MFTU with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with MFTU before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Dub metal

Can you plz name few bands that play music that would be called "dub metal"? Please note that Ragga metal bands like Dub War is entirely different thing. Netrat (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Plz reply a my talk page. Netrat (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

CsD of Female Appreciation Day

Your fast, beat me to it :) --Scythre (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I've come in second plenty of times....Hairhorn (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sumaura Kōen

I was in the middle of translating these pages from Japanese. Is there a way to get their source back? Laitr Keiows (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They were not empty. I will try contacting admin. Thank you for wasting my work. Laitr Keiows (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think I wasted your work, but your pages were blank. Placeholder pages are frowned upon, and it's an admin that ultimately deleted them. Hairhorn (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

article on city data is not spam

How about helping me rewrite the article by pointing out what part of it makes it spam. until then your spam label will be deleted. you are spamming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 13:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC) if there are articles on websites like adultfriendfinder and realgm there is no excuse for leaving out citydata which has a forum where 600 thousand members contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Huh? First of all, I can barely understand what you're saying. I'm spamming? I placed the {advert} tag in lieu of a speedy deletion tag. The advert tag only suggests a re-write, it has nothing to do with deletion. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing to you. how can I rewrite what I have written if you don't point out what you think makes it look like spam ? I included information about it being mentioned on cnn to support the claim that the information found on its website is well known and famous. to make it clear that the article isn't biased i included 2 links to people discontented with it.

UCAN

m agreed. Note however that Ingoman accused me of slander many times.... Is that not in the realm of the legal world, and "off-wiki" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.205 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, wut? Second, that others are doing something is not a great excuse for doing it yourself. If you feel aggrieved, there are no shortage of channels to go through around here. Hairhorn (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A J M Industries

just wanted to let you know i erased a note you put after the comment I made on the A J M Industries deletion discussion because I made a comment there without being signed in and it showed up as an IP. I'll try to remember to make sure i'm signed in next time. Thanks for you input.--Helpful4sure (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Alexandra Palace

You removed spam from here and someone has just put it back. I'm not sure of my grounds for removing this spam so am passing it on to you. Cheers.--Storye book (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hairhorn. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EWN-America.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Clerk note with regards to the SPI report you created. MuZemike 23:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion

Hello Hairhorn,

Regarding proposed deletion of Joshua Blake: The Agency, forgive me as I’m a new Wikipedia user, but I’m confused.

The message states that I can remove it if I object to the deletion, or improve the article.

Technically, it does satisfy notability criteria in terms of "Significant coverage”, should more links be included to show this? There are plenty of news articles on the internet if so.

I have also found other Wikipedia articles on projects still in production, so assumed this was appropriate. There is a completed 6 minute promo for this show, which is linked.

I’m not hugely against deletion if this is too early for it to be on Wikipedia, so I won’t remove the deletion message, but I’d just like to understand the criteria a little better. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your time. Jbta editor (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, yes, you can remove the Prod template, but you should address the deficiencies in the article, or at least give your reasoning for removing it. Also, and again technically, the status of other articles doesn't bear on this article. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion query

Hi Hairthorn,

Please advise on logic behind speedy deletion of Urban Communications being agency responsible for coming up with idea of Graduate Apprentice[3] while BHMG Marketing is to remain. Cheers.--UrbanComms (talk) 12:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed an unnecessarily promotional line that you added (not a "speedy deletion"). I did not address the rest of the article; I didn't write this article. Hairhorn (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

URDAD article

Have added more context which should clarify the topic as well as categorization. Would like to request that the article is not deleted. User:FritzSolms 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You're in the wrong place, I don't have control over whether it gets deleted or not. You should add your comments to the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/URDAD. Cheers. 12:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Vector (1996 film)

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Vector (1996 film) has been removed. It was removed by Jamie Lee Jean Hewitt with the following edit summary '(The unreleased version can be found on E-mule, it should've been specified before.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jamie Lee Jean Hewitt before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Feedback felching

I am writing this to inform you about your WP:PROD of this article, has been sent to WP:AFD by User:Chzz ([4]). If you still feel it should be deleted, please feel free to coment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Feedback_felching. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 03:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Declining speedy

I saw your edits on restoring the removed speedy delete template. User:Ren56 removed the template with no reason, I am afraid to revert it back because of 3RR, what can we do about this? The template has repeated twice on the article, and is a clear duplication of the lower navbox.--JL 09 _^q?c 12:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest decline reason looks fine to me, if a little terse. I'd suggest bringing it up for discussion instead, I'm guessing Miscellany for deletion is the place for it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Edward J. Carvalho

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Edward J. Carvalho has been removed. It was removed by Lifebaka with the following edit summary '(rm PROD tags; add notability tag and make refs not ugly)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Lifebaka before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Michael Roche(Footballer)

Hi,

My contribution was deleted from Wikipedia amd im just curious as to the reasons why?

User:Winterwonder2008 —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

You're asking the wrong person, I only replaced an AfD tag that was incorrectly removed. The page has not even been deleted yet. You can contribute to the deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Roche (footballer). Hairhorn (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Persecution of Sikhs

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Persecution of Sikhs has been removed. It was removed by Rjanag with the following edit summary '(boldly converting to a dab page and removing PROD)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Rjanag before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Talk:Timewave_zero#Redirect proposal

Notice: You commented in an Article for deletion for Timewave zero an RfC has been opened on whether this article should be merged. Please comment on the above link. Lumos3 (talk) 15:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Arunn Gupta

I've recently reverted an edit by user:58.68.8.185 on the Gorakhpur region of India article advertising Arunn Gupta's services, so it would appear that Mr Gupta is operating in concert with other editors.... danno 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, he's been wiping speedy delete templates, too. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Having spent the day cleaning up the Gorakhpur article (again, there were 8 Arunn Guptaa mentions this time), I looked again this evening to discover that 2 editors with remarkably similar IPs have each added back some of the Arunn Guptaa spam. I don't really know how the system for dealing with sockpuppets works but this looks like a prime case. Would you mind taking a look? Thanks danno 22:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There's an area for sockpuppet investigations, although usually I think you'd have to find multiple accounts, not just IPs. The reports are easy to file. But from what I can see, you've already handled this the right way, by reverting & warning the IP. If it gets worse you can add higher levels of warning and take it to WP:AIV when it crosses the line. Hairhorn (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

That's great. Thanks for the help on the band members of The Shells. I had no idea if they deserved their own page -- but another editor insisted on redlinking them, so I tried my best to turn those links blue. Your approach works for me ... but please keep an eye on them, as this editor has been wikistalking me with a penchant for revising my edits ever since I criticized an edit of his 2 days ago. Thanks again.--VMAsNYC (talk) 00:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick question. I don't care either way on this, but a question just popped into my head. The only thing "lost" by the redirect is the Wikiprojects on the discussion page. How is that to be handled -- should they be added to the band's talk page, or simply not added and that issue ignored? Thank you.--VMAsNYC (talk) 00:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. As for the first issue, redirect pages are not a perfect solution to redlinks, because then you get "piped links", the ideal solution is to edit the original links so they lead somewhere else, which will make them blue (this is easy to do). As for the second issue, no idea. Cheers again. Hairhorn (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Ipod terra

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Ipod terra has been removed. It was removed by Joe1234567890000 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Joe1234567890000 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 21:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

I got a call from the Yahoos that created the attack page you nominated for speedy.

Thank you. XCD (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A call? Eh? You're welcome.... Hairhorn (talk) 02:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

David Altounian

I am currently building this page as a complementary page to an established article titled Motion Computing for which David Altounian is the current CEO of. This page is no different from Michael Dell or Steve Jobs' and contains information about a contributing member of society in austin texas.

Cw1242 (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Merely being the CEO isn't enough to merit a separate page. The other names you mention have notability above and beyond merely being CEOs; press coverage of them is easy to find. Not so for David Altounian. You'll need independent sources to establish his notabilty (ie more than the company's page and his Linkedin page.). Hairhorn (talk) 17:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Results 1 - 10 of about 78,400 for david altounian motion computing. (0.36 seconds)

That is what comes back when you search him in google. I'm not trying to say this justifies his notability but there is a substantial amount of coverage on him and his business ventures, startups, contributions and other things that he has done that are beyond his position as CEO. How do you start a page and add information to it without admins trying to delete it immediately? You guys are vigilant, I'll give you that, but how does someone who is new establish any sort of credibility on this site when the powerusers shoot them down? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cw1242 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sheer Google numbers mean absolutely nothing. The first hit is a facebook page, then there's some blogs, a page on the company's own website, etc. Counting hits doesn't really go anywhere. Hairhorn (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Wahhabi" Myth

Hi, the three PRODs on The "Wahhabi" Myth have been removed. Yours was the third. Have left a note at OliverTwisted (the first PROD). This is part of a larger mess centred around Wahhabi and in need of mediation. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 16:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

List of people in Playboy 2010–2019

First of all, thanks for the sarcastic "Cheers" at the end of you comment... It wasn't appreciated.

Second, the Playmate of the Month and associated interview subjects normally get announced a few months in advance, so although empty now, the list soon won't be. If you're all fired up to get it deleted, then just have it moved to my user space and I'll put it back into article space when I do have at least one entry. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 20:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The sarcarsm is entirely projected on your part. I sent you a note as a courtesy, in lieu of a deletion tag on your article. Hairhorn (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Black Death

"Why is this such a popular vandalism target?" I often wonder that myself - its the most vanldalised page I watch.--SabreBD (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it's mostly children forced to write "projects". Hairhorn (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of The Obsidian Key Entry - Eleanor J Cramphorn

The reason for this entry was that my step daughter had the author come into her school to promote the book. I thought other schools in the region may also be visited, and therefore an article would be useful for other parents.

Many Thanks

sam

• Well, I certainly wasn't questioning your motives, just the notability of the book. Hairhorn (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of article Dipanjan biswas

The link to the poem "Ei Chotto Meye" has been added in the references. Is it notable now ? What other proof is needed ?

All I see is a link to a poem someone posted online. What is that supposed to demonstrate exactly? Existence and notability are very different things. Hairhorn (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So how do we make it notable ??

The subject of the article has to be notable, not the article itself. You can't make that happen. You can read the guidelines about notability here. Hairhorn (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indian animation

Is there any way to fix this problem? The concept appears to be notable. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, rewrite the article with original text. Hairhorn (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mauj Jamshedpuri

Hi, I see you prodded this article. I actually put a speedy up on it but it was removed. Should I reinstate it or would you prefer to leave the prod run its course? GainLine ♠ _♥ 12:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to put your speedy back. I didn't replace it, because it was technically declined, but without an edit summary and by someone who looks like a sock of the article creator. It's not that unusual to have a speedy tag and a prod tag on the same page. Knock yourself out. Hairhorn (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Didnt realise it had been declined, I'll leave the prod run its course. Cheers GainLine ♠ _♥ 08:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Kill fat today

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Kill fat today has been removed. It was removed by 78.133.13.81 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 78.133.13.81 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Quedgemin

Thanks for your useful assessment of this article, which I've deleted. It occurs to me that you could profitably use rollback privileges. If that would be of interest, leave me a note on my talk page. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Talento Argentino

Just to let you know that this page was created in a foreign language which the author later changed to English. A bot kept putting the A2 template back up. Dunno if you saw the edit history. - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked the history, but not every version. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement on Adify page

Hi Hairhorn, The material referrenced from http://www.mywikibiz.com/index.php?title=Directory:Adify&oldid=87715 was written by me while learning how to use wikis. I noted this on the talk page of Adify. How would I go about proving that I am the author of this content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtlandsmith (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The terms of use for the wiki you originally posted the text on aren't the same as wikipedia's terms of use. See wikipedia:copyrights for more information. But the easiest way around any copyright problem is a simple rewrite. Hairhorn (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Hairhorn --Courtlandsmith (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Polo (Video Game)

Apparently I am violating something by using text from MY website on an article about MY game that I am programming.

Why cant I do this? --Shawnanator (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You can, but there's a procedure that has to be gone through first. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

franca batich

Hi. I am very surprised of you reporting a copyright infringement, as we had already emailed permissions-en@wikimedia.org stating this is not a copyright violation. could you please verify and remove the notice, thanks a lot. best, --Globe.explorer (talk) 08:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Normally one would clear up the copyright issues first, then post the material. Otherwise these sorts of things happen. Most users do not have access to OTRS email. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

hi hairhorn, honestly i feel your BIG BOLD REDUNDANT is redundant. I understood that the interview has to be removed, but a biography will soon be filled, and this page certainly is not the same as the superformula, so please respect this, remove your redundant comment and wait for a shortwhile while the biography is being prepared, thanks alot ian Ian Clemmer 13:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PhiZikl (talk • contribs)

I guess you're talking about Talk:Johan Gielis. This is a talk page, not an article. The whole point of a talk page is discussing how to improve the article, so I don't really see the problem. You might want to look at the Talk page guidelines. Hairhorn (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Conductive atomic force microscopy

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Conductive atomic force microscopy has been removed. It was removed by Jaymody with the following edit summary '(This is a basic introduction on how the conductive afm technique works. The article has been improved and a citation has also been added to the article)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Jaymody before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Neuroimaging of internal carotid artery dissection in Horner’s syndrome listed at RfD

Hello Hairhorn. In May you converted the article Neuroimaging of internal carotid artery dissection in Horner’s syndrome to a redirect, identifying it as an "Overly technical cut & paste essay, comprehensible only to experts (student paper?)". As the article does not go into sufficient depth to justify the title of the redirect, I have nominated it for deletion over at RfD. You are invited to to participate in the redirect discussion -- ToE^T 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nzaqout

I've deleted the nth reposting of the nn bio of the Libyan individual, and SALTed it, as you requested. I was puzzled at the precise speedy tag you'd used because I couldn't find any evidence that the editor who created the article had been banned. I finally realized that you had used the tag because the individual had been temporarily blocked. As you can see, I agreed with deleting the article and SALTing the title; my understanding, though, is that a temporary block isn't grounds for automatic deletion due to the creator having been banned. Just thought I would mention that for the future. In this case it seems that the individual's chances of future useful contributions are unlikely, but I always like to cling to a shred of hope <smile>. If the Libyan's biography crops up again under yet another retitling, please feel free to let me know and I'll assist. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks... I realized already that banning and blocking are two different things, although by then I'd already tagged everything and gone to bed. Thanks for clearing it up regardless. I come across a lot more banned users than blocked ones (and the user talk page tag for a banned user doesn't say "banned" anywhere.... in fact it says "blocked"). The paragraph of Wikipedia:Banning policy that distinguishes between them could be a little less convoluted as well. Anyway, cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The latest iteration is at Talk:Khaled Elhamedi, from User:SalahEldin2009. Hairhorn (talk) 11:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) There's an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khaled El-Khweldi El-Hamedi that is related, it seems. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hairhorn,

i am trying to build my contribution, there is one issues i have been looking into and that is the name of my contribution "Ontario Justice Education Network". I would like it to be visible when searched under its acronym "OJEN". Is there a tag that applies to this, i have been searching and reading through those listed in wiki, but haven't seen it if it is there. If this is not the way to accomplish this then how can i get it to show up under "OJEN" your help will be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance b.c —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojen1 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of WETLAB and my contributions

Designer1001 (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Hairhorn, why are my contributions conserning "Wetlabs" or "Wet-laboratories" being deleted (or marked to be deleted) soon after i make contributions? I also started a new article as WETLAB which is the term used for practical medical training, mostly cardiac surgery training, i thought i would start an article up because a wet-laboratory is a room where wetlabs might happen, a wetlab is the procedure *Like saying football and a football pitch-two different things-although linked, if you catch my drift :) So i started Wetlab up as an article but it got deleted, I have quite alot of expereince in this area because my father set up the organisation of WETLAB which brought the practice to a lot of medical practitioners attention, im not trying to spam, vandalise or anything...im just passionate about the subject at hand. I put a link to the website under 'see also' because as you can see there is alot of information found there, like videos and online classes on the subject, it isnt just mindless spamming! (wetlab.com) Thankyou

Did you read the notice I left you? The article I saw was blank, blank articles are deleted very quickly. You are perfectly welcome to contribute something other than a blank page.

I wasn't involved in the other versions, but please note that there is already a wetlab article, and that there are guidelines for the notability of companies and spamming. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, how can i stop it redirecting to wet-laboratories? there two different things and it mis-informs people, i wanted to right some content in wetlab and then redirect it to that page, when they click on the link of wetlab facilites —Preceding unsigned comment added by Designer1001 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tagging

Please be more careful with tagging pages with speedy deletion in the future. Banco Chambers had an obvious assertion of notability. —Dark 06:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I was replacing a tag that was removed by the article creator, I looked at the entry only briefly. You can take this up with the original tagger. And I have read the "notability section", thank you. Further, I would say that I have yet to see a broad consensus over the interpretation of "assertion of notability"; there are people around here who will tell you "x wrote a book" or "x recorded an album" is an assertion of notability, which is madness. In this case for example "appeared before high court several times" doesn't impress me in a law firm. Hairhorn (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OJEN

Hi Hairhorn,

Thanks for the tip about redirecting. It was much appreciated. However just a quick question on this, will it show up in Google search or other engines when searched as OJEN ? I made the redirect page but it doesn't show up in Google, i am wondering if it takes a bit of time to start to show up ?

Thanks again, B.C —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ojen1 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

REMOVAL NOMINATION

Hi Hairhorn. Having seen the zeal with which you and a couple of others chase down the possibly-not-notable, I suggest for your inspection the lesser musical references in the popular culture subsection of the Hindenburg airship's article. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindenburg_disaster#Popular_culture the Zepplin album of course is notable, but the other bands seem like self-promotion by tiny entities. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)CramYourSpam

Sorry, but what's the point of this message? You've used more than one post elsewhere to make personal attacks against me, now you have a burning interest in a subsection of an article? Feel free to edit it yourself and please do heed the warnings against making personal attacks that have already been placed on your talk page. Hairhorn (talk)

Speedy deletion declined: Robb knie

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Robb knie - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. — Jake Wartenberg 05:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

You should take this up with the original tagger; I only replaced a tag removed by the article creator. However, the current version of the article still doesn't look good enough to pass speedy. But that's rather moot now. Hairhorn (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Bay View Academy

I severely edited Bay View Academy, and I think the remaining text should be okay. Could you please take a look at it? -- Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 11:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction

Someone put up an AFD template for Dechronication's sub-page, Dechronication/Hypotheticals. I had no idea that AFD'ing a subpage meant automatically AFD'ing the host page as well. Can you link us a policy page stating that the host page must be AFD'd if a sub-page is? --70.179.170.40 (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing automatic about it. That page was added to an existing AfD, this is a pefectly commonplace practice. The AfD policy even gives instructions for multiple nominations. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Righteous Sock Barnstar
		Awarded to Hairhorn for meritorious editing. Thank you for your good work reviewing speedy deletion tags on new articles written by an unknown editor. As part of this project I created an account with a dubious username and wrote ten referenced but badly formatted stubs about Antarctic mosses. Two of those articles were nominated for speedy deletion; you rejected one of the nominations with a note that the article did not qualify for A7 speedy criteria. Thank you for prompt and conscientious reviewing. Durova362 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Katie Rowley Jones

I don't know if Katie Rowley Jones would pass WP:AFD, but with a clear indication of importance (starring in a West End musical) and even two relevant newspaper sources backing it up, it's clearly not eligible for WP:CSD#A7. Please brush up on WP:CSD#A7. Rd232 ^talk 09:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Just below a speedy decline barnstar. Hmmm.... Hairhorn (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm indeed. Though seeing as it says "The Righteous Sock Barnstar", I hadn't noticed. Rd232 ^talk 12:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, when making prod nominations referencing notability, please link to WP:N, since the PROD summary is used for the user warning message, and newbies may not know what is meant. Rd232 ^talk 12:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kwesi Boakye

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Kwesi Boakye - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 00:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not the original tagger of this page, I only replaced a tag removed by the article creator. You can take this up with the original tagger. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: The Genetic Testing Laboratories, Inc.

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of The Genetic Testing Laboratories, Inc. - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  07:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't nominate this page ( I just replaced the tag) and you in fact deleted it, rather than declining the speedy as you say here. So I'm not sure what's going on. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Basically, I cocked up! GedUK  08:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from The Big J Show

Hello Hairhorn, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to The Big J Show has been removed. It was removed by 69.144.14.242 with the following edit summary 'The page is valid'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 69.144.14.242 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 19:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Murghawi

An article that you have been involved in editing, Murghawi, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murghawi. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ravi Arvind Palat

I have addressed some of the issues about why Ravi Arvind Palat should NOT be speedily deleted here: Talk:Ravi Arvind Palat. My guess is the old article did not properly establish notability.This one seems to pass easily to me. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Do you have a copy of the old article? Is this one very similar or is it in any way significantly different? Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC))

Nope, sorry. I mentioned that in the edit history. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

About A T M Abdul Mateen

Would you consider removing your dated PROD from A T M Abdul Mateen? This man actually appears to have been a notable figure in Bangladesh. There are still no supporting documents for most of the claims, but he was a Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly of Pakistan. Shouldn't he have more than seven days for the author of the article to scratch up some references? Yappy2bhere (talk) 09:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The prod is already gone. Speaker is probably enough for notability, yes; that was buried deep in the article. The lead still has no real claim to notability at all. Hairhorn (talk) 15:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. By "lead", you mean the first sentence, like a lead in a newspaper article? Oh, and why did you delete my "fact" tag? Was it simply premature in an article with no references at all? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove the prod, and I didn't remove your tag, either. Please check the article's edit history (click "history" at the top of the page). And the lead is the beginning of the article, see wp:lead for more. Hairhorn (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I misunderstood your reply. I did check the history. Both edits were done by IP 99.6.236.174 from Dallas. I assumed that you'd forgotten to log in. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Matilda Dodge Wilson

Hello Hairhorn, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Matilda Dodge Wilson - a page you tagged - because: I've removed the copyvio section. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I think you'll find that the 95% of what remains is still lifted from the same page as always, with the occasional word shifted around. Have a look: [5]. Hairhorn (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I am very slowly working to improve this article, but I notice that someone has removed the copyright ripoff tag from it and I am wondering if the article is still a largely unrewritten piece of someone else's work. I am not sure how to check for this. Do you mind doing it again? Ho ho ho Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD of Kobi Arad and sockpuppetry of its creator Knoblauch129

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kobi Arad
• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Knoblauch129

Your comments welcome! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Grandmaster Ik Jo Kang

FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hairhorn (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: World Organization of Students and Youth

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of World Organization of Students and Youth, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Sources indicate some notability, sufficient for A7. PROD or take to AfD. Thank you. GedUK  20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not nominate this page, I only reverted a dubious tag removal, which to my mind is not the same thing. I think we've been down this road before... Hairhorn (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ali ‘Fingerz’ Esbai

I've been having a few issues with the article creator of Ali ‘Fingerz’ Esbai removing Speedy Delete tags, and note that the article is a repost of a previously deleted article and you've had problems with him before. Is there a procedure for blocking the editor for reverting deletion tags? Cheers, Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Normally, bad behaviour is first met with warnings (using the appropriate templates on their user talk page). In most cases you would not ask for admin help until you've run out of warnings (there are four levels of warnings). User talk:BaraaAbdulla already has a level 3 warning against removing AfD tags (I placed that one) but there is only one warning about removing speedy delete tags, and there is not even a notification that the repost was tagged for deletion. A block is unlikely until he stacks up a few more warnings. (When you do run out of warnings, the place to go is WP:AIV; there is also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, but this case doesn't merit either of those yet.) If things start up again, feel free to tag his page with a warning template for every time he reposts this page or removes a speedy tag from it. Anyone can warn a fellow user, you do not have to be an admin (I am not). Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 05:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Cybernautic

FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The Daddy

An article that you have been involved in editing, The Daddy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Daddy. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Atama頭 19:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephen Powney

FYI I have proposed this page (concerning a plane photographer) for deletion. TrulyBlue (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, this should never have made it past speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kash Johns

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kash Johns, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. SoWhy 20:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I only replaced a tag removed by the creator, the nomination had nothing to do with me. The claims in the article are also pretty weak.Hairhorn (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Stuart Roy Clarke

Hi Hairhorn,

Please can I ask why you redirected Stuart Roy Clarke to The Homes Of Football as he also has books on other subjects and various exhibitions? These clearly do not fit under the Homes Of Football entry. I thought the idea of wikipedia was to share knowledge, not to delete it without question or knowledge of the subject. I'm sorry, I'm very dissapointed by this.

HomesOfFootball (talk) 12:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to make my reasoning clear in the edit summary. Feel free to unredirect the page yourself, but have a look at WP:COI first. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Haddock Fashions

I was being polite - for once... Peridon (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I waver back and forth myself... Hairhorn (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Advent Computer Training

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Advent Computer Training, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, now at AfD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, Happy Camp Family Resource Center is now at AfD too.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

RfD for As of

I have brought the page As of for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 18#As of. Since you have edited the page in the past, and since I don't quite understand the history of this redirect, I hope you can comment there. Thank you, Cnilep (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't get it either, the first edit seems to be protesting the original deletion. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Jaco and the fretless

Here are a few examples of the rumor/misconception being spread around. These aren't supposed to be reliable sources, on the contrary – it should strengthen my point that this is a largely held misconception.

[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] (this is supposed to be a biography – quote: "He invented the fretless bass guitar one night by taking out a pair of pliers and some wood compound and removing the frets.")
[10]
[11]
[12] (this is supposed to be a bass related lecture – quote: "It was invented by Jaco Pastorius who, takin' away the frets of his Fender Jazz, could in this way obtain a sound that even more so permitted him to stand out for his enormous technical and expressive skills.")

If you need any more links, please do not hesitate to let me know. I'm not going to take hippo43's bait and will refrain from keeping the edit war going, so I am counting on you to take what I just wrote under careful consideration and hopefully, do the right thing and restore the example yourself. Thank you very much in advance. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. But even if all of these qualified as reliable sources, all this would demonstrate is a misconception popular inside a particular community, not a common misconception. Most people haven't even heard of Jaco Pastorius; even most of the bass players I know don't know or care enough to have any misconceptions about him. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the exact opposite of the point I am trying to convey here: all these are random blogs/sites (which points at multiple communities, not just one) which discuss the misconception from different angles. This is a clear indication that the misconception exists, and as for your claim that most bass players wouldn't care about Jaco... well, I will simply refrain from commenting on that In any case, the jazz community is too large to ignore. Many of the historical misconceptions listed in this article are among the American community, is that trivia as well? Also, this article lists many misconceptions, of which I have never heard before – should I be arrogant and remove them under that claim? To make a long story short, there was not a single music entry before I started editing this article. Instead of a thankful effort to add more material, editors are busy with hair-splitting politics and "compulsive deletionism." Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Zip!

Click here for animation		"Speedy" Barnstars
		In grateful acknowledgment of your excellent work with speedy deletions. (Feel free to archive this when it gets annoying!) - Dank (push to talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not easy on the eyes, but thanks and cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Better? - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

erm, looks broken now. I'm overdue for an archive anyhow... Hairhorn (talk)

Okay, less broken now. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed & talking to newbies

The lack of communication here is sad. How can we make the speedy process more understandable to newbies without slowing down patrollers too much? +sj+ 14:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not an admin, so I'm not permitted to see just how sad it is. I will say that in my experience, people don't seem to bother to read the longer user page templates like {speedy1}, which is often the first one they get. Hairhorn (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speed Deletion of Betaville

I am filling in the holes in the article as we speak, i should be done with it in a weeks time. This is no advertising, its a research project with funding from the Rockafellar group —Preceding unsigned comment added by Looneydoodle (talk • contribs) 04:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Binary Independence Model

Hello Hairhorn. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Binary Independence Model, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Might have been blatant before, but rewrite has changed it sufficiently. Thank you. GedUK  18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Human Factors Lab

Hello Hairhorn,

There was a submision to delete the wiki article about the band Human Factors Lab. this submision was done by a user by the name of "bringthemdown" this user account was created by ex members of the band for the sole porpose of vadelizing the human factors lab wiki page. The page has come under these attack from these same people, if you check the history on the page dating back for thepast 6 months you will see examples of this. Someone realized that this was a vandalism attempt and remved the note about the page being deleted. I noticed you then went back and undid this edit. im not sure what can be done to prevent this type of vandelism on wiki, perhaps you may have some insight. Either way please do not undo the attemps that are being made to prevent it. thanky you —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 20:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The place to dispute the AFD nom in on the AFD page. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been disputed there, and as of yet the deletion request is still on the page, what other steps can be taken to undo this vandalism and prevent it from happeneing in the future? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFLSev3n (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Posting on the AFD page does NOT give you license to remove the tags from the article. AFD nominations are decided by consensus, nominations that are clearly done in bad faith will be closed. It's not clear to me that this is what is happening in this case. You may want to read up on the Articles for deletion policy. Hairhorn (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Jimcrik7

I think there's 2 more: User:TeamWorm and User:KingHammer. Should a RFCU be started? XXX antiuser ^eh? 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, why not.... although the AFD will probably be over before it's resolved. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Et voilà: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimcrik7. I didn't request CheckUser though since the CheckUser criteria seems to indicate it's not needed in this case. You might want to put your two bits in there since you tagged two of the suspected socks. Cheers, XXX antiuser ^eh? 14:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You posted under "Comments by accused parties" so I went ahead and moved it down. You don't seem to be a sock... :) XXX antiuser ^eh? 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I actually checked back to make sure I'd posted in the right spot, but you were faster than me... Thanks. Hairhorn (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I create a page for a local Las Vegas MMA production called TUFF-N-UFF Championships? Every time I try to make one it gets a speedy delete for some advertising or whatever. I am trying to use the same template as UFC, Strikeforce, and MANY other MMA championships. What am I doing wrong? I am not an employee of the company, just a fan! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TuffNuff Erwin (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion due to AFD guidelines denied Lopez Negrete Communications, Inc.

Article meets NPOV guidelines and I am not affiliated with the company. Thanks to Malcolma for category edit. I agree this page could use assistance from the Wikipedia community to make it better but article doesn't need to be deleted according to AFD. Cgiambi (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Denied"? Huh? AFD is decided by consensus, I have not even voted in the AFD. Hairhorn (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

BLOCK =

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

HomerHomerHomerHomer (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)