User talk:DESiegel/Archive 6

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

This is an archive of User talk:DESiegel. Please do not change it in any way. DES (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Hamilton[edit]

No problem at all. I'll help you keep an eye on it in the meantime in case any more funny business comes up so it's not one-sided. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I've reported him at the 3RR noticeboard so hopefully this nonsense will stop sometime soon. -Cquan (don't yell at me...) 17:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

re Arky Pluto[edit]

Well, when I did undelete it, I got slapped with a trout for wheel warring (which is edit warring, except over admin functions like delete). Wheel warring is not looked on at all kindly, and its a good way to lose your admin status. I didn't want to wheel war, so I backed off and undid my undeletion. I agree that it's kind of odd to have an AfD and a DRv going for the same article at the same time, and frustrating to comment in an AfD when you can't read the article. You could ask User:JzG or User:AlisonW to reinstate the article for the time being, for this reason; since they would only be undoing their own deletions, it would not be wheel warring for them to undelete the article. Herostratus 23:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Time Stamp Problems[edit]

Hello again. I have a problem with my time stamp on my userpage (05:16, 5 October 2017 UTC [refresh]). At this current time, it will display 00:43 for me when logged in, and 00:49 when I logged out. I just previewed this post and saw that the time was correct when posted. Now, I know that the time stamp does update, but I never payed attention to how often it does. Can you help me out? ---Signed By:KoЯnfan71 (User PageMy TalkContribs) 01:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok .. and where can I ask assistance[edit]

Yes ... I was uright up against the rule.

I didn't think I was violating 3RR myself, though. I do not want to violate the rules. I was adding content and formating ... if I did, I will accept whatever is decided ...

There is no automatic right to three reverts per day, and edit warring is a bad thing.

I do not want to do that, if I did .... is there a place to get assistance in such circumstances? J. D. Redding 01:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was readding the content and formatting multiple times wiht additional ting ... I do make alot of edits in formation ... I find it hard to use the preview button ...
I will try to remember that that is "reverting" ... but I am glad I was not ove the 3RR limit ...
I was trying to conform to the MoS, which is good ... and yes I understand that MoS is a guideline ... should not be robotiacally enforced .... I'll keep in mind that per-article consensus can soemtiems override it ....
I do try to discus the matter on the other editor's talk page
As to discuss the matter on the article's talk page ask other interested editors to assist, I may not have done that this time .. but will strive to in the future
For help ... request for comment ... that would be the key page I suppose ... thank you ...
[WP:ANI]] I did not think was an option .... I didn't think it was an extreme case ... maybe it was ...
I will look to help desk get eyes on a things ... thank you again ... J. D. Redding 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

My page and the changes i have made in any page.[edit]

Dear DES, I do know i have repeated the same article twice now and for that i will be incredibaly sorry. But, i would want to leave the page as it gets deleated by it self. I would like to save all the changes i have made in any pages. Can you please tell me the reason why it is deleating by it self and help me to keep the page and any changes in any page i have made.

Thankyou for taking your time reading this and it will be appreaciated if you tell me why its deleating.

Thankyou.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talkcontribs) 16:31, 4 June 2007

Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg[edit]

As so ordered by DRV, Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg is again nominated for deletion. Please see the debate at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 4#Image:Cogny Castries Navarre.jpg. Regards, howcheng {chat} 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


You recently made some changes to {{Unreferenced}} which do not appear to have gone down well and I agree they're unhelpful. Could you please remove the words "although it may be a good idea to ask for specific sources first" from the template and discuss it on the talk page if you want to introduce some text along those lines. Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 13:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.[edit]

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you but one more question![edit]

Hello, it's me again, coolshamas_01. Thankyou for explaining me why it's deleting and what's meant by 'speedy deletion'. Again i'm thankful for that. However i will want to know what does the word, citing, means as it has confused me. Not only me but others too.

Thankyou very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talkcontribs) 10:33, 8 June 2007

ANOTHER question![edit]

sorry for asking another question again. but what kind of source you mean. Can you please tell me. Thank you very much.. Again!!


coolshamas_01 USER —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolshamas 01 (talkcontribs) 10:33, 8 June 2007

Kornbluth paragraph in Newspeak article[edit]

This paragraph is completely irrelevant for the reasons you describe so cogently in the Newspeak discussion section. So, in line with the Wiki encouragement to 'be bold', I've removed it. 05:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Provost Sergeant Tim Weston[edit]

Hi, you prodded the article Provost Sergeant Tim Weston with the justification: "minor fictional character, stub written in in-universe style, no references or sources cited, see WP:FICT". However, I think he is in fact a real person that was in a reality TV show in the UK called "Bad Lads Army" in which various young social malcontents were sent for 1940's style army training. Whilst the show was popular, this individual doesn't meet notability standards. Consequently, I have re-prodded the article with a 'non-notable individual' justification. Hope this is OK. CIreland 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Guidlines[edit]

Hi thanks for pointing that out and apologies for your effort.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dopste (talkcontribs) 11:06, 11 June 2007

Request for comments[edit]

Hello, DESiegel ... About a month ago, we had contact regarding my drafts for protocols to "slow down" the proposed and speedy deletion processes ... I've been busy with other projects since then, and used the time to let ideas percolate in the back of my mind, but I have recently readdressed the protocols from a fresh point of view, and took the time to learn how to make templates.

Please see User talk: for comments on protocols and templates for proposed and speedy deletions and give me your feedback on the templates I have created for boilerplate warnings to be placed on editor's and articles talk pages prior to placing a PROD or CSD on an article. Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 19:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


Good morning...I was looking at the Administrators Noticeboards, and I wasn't 100% sure on where to post/request this, but I am requesting to have It (film) semi-protected because for the last few days I've been having to revert IP edits that remove valid information from the site. When you look at the history you can see these edits. Unfortunately, I cannot make any reverts for a few hours without breaking WP:3RR so I'm stuck right now. Semi-protecting the page would help keep the maintenace down on the page so I don't have to constantly look over my shoulder waiting for the 3RR monster to get me. --sumnjim talk with me·changes 12:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Found out where to request this --sumnjim talk with me·changes 17:02, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about tag placement, second opinion[edit]

Hi, DESiegel, I have had pleasant experiences in the past with you regarding relations with other users, and I was hoping you would be able to give me a little advice for how to better handle a situation. I have had dialogue with User:Ed Fitzgerald in the past about his dislike of templates and their placement on articles. We had a discussion here after he moved the {{plot}} template from the article to the talk page because he believed it "doesn't need to be seen by the general public." Later I noticed that he was moving similar templates to the end of the article. I posted to his talk page explaining their proper location and their general reason for being. He didn't reply to me, however, and I noticed again today that he has continued relocating them. It's not a criminal offense, I understand, but I think he's missing the point. I'm obviously not getting to him, so perhaps I'm explaining it incorrectly? I don't want it to descend into WP:LAME, but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't irk me. Any advice you could give would be great. Take care, María (críticame) 18:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


I thought the delete votes were more persuasive, but upon re-examination I guess it is too close to call. I changed it to no consensus. OcatecirT 03:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2[edit]

I reverted the addition of your comment, because you also altered User:Tony Sidaway's comment in the process. Feel free to re-add your comment without the edit to Tony's own post. -- Kesh 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Finkelstein DRV[edit]

Thanks for calling my attention to this. More to the point, thanks for taking the time to start it. JamesMLane t c 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

No speedy deletion for My Turban[edit]

Didn't realize that the article had to be explicitly about the band in question to merit a db-band. Sorry about that! --Iknowyourider (t c) 03:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem it is a rather technical point, and perhaps this rule should be changed. DES (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Neil Smith[edit]

Hi there, I understand what you left on my talk page. I am still coming to grips with how strong an assertion fails a WP:CSD#A7, and I'm not suprised to see you dispute it. I will prod it, thanks for the message. In my opinion, also-rans can stay up while they are still-running, but once they become a failed candidate - unless they become independently notable for it, being an also-ran is not anything special. (eg: Santa Clause from the Santa Clause and the Merry Christmas Party, from a few years back here in the Australian Federal Senate. Isn't deed poll a wonderful thing?)Garrie 03:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments back at my talk page.
Different DOB as stated on each article.Garrie 03:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My Bitch[edit]

Sorry, I am a bit new at this, so I guess I kind of messed up. Thanks for the heads up. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 19:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal election, 1941[edit]

Hello, I got your note with regards to the series of articles I've been putting up on Edmonton elections. First let me say that I recognized when I started these that some people might interpret them as failing WP:N but, since I don't agree, I decided to be bold and create them anyway. If, after reading my arguments, you want to AfD the articles I certainly won't take any offense; I would ask only that you do so promptly so that, if consensus goes against me, I don't waste any more time on the series.

All of that said, I believe that individual municipal elections in Edmonton pass WP:N. I make the following arguments in support of my belief: 1. Any given election in Edmonton receives very significant coverage from a wide variety of media sources in Edmonton in the period leading up to and after the election in question, relatively significant coverage from other Canadian media in the same period, and small but significant coverage from the writings of local historians and political scientists in ensuing years (admittedly few of these latter writings are available online, but I would cite this as one example that is). City Politics, Canada is one example of a book that I happen to own that deals with specific past municipal elections. 2. Edmonton is a municipality of more than one million people. There are many smaller jurisdictions (Guyana and Prince Edward Island to take just a couple of examples) that have pages for their individual elections. While I agree with the authors of WP:AADD that the existence of a given article does not necessarily legitimize the existence of all comparable articles, I think that, in cases like this where no clear notability guideline exists, we need to consider the consequence to other established articles of our decisions. If we determine that Edmonton elections are insufficiently notable, I think it does call into question the justification for individual pages on PEI's elections, for example, and I don't think we should proceed with deleting the Edmonton articles unless we're either prepared to do the same with PEI and Guyana or we can come up with a clear justification for why they should stay when Edmonton shouldn't. 3. You suggest that allowing articles on municipal elections will make Wikipedia "groan under the load". With respect, I don't believe that this is so. As long as articles have distinct names that don't require a lot of new disambiguation pages - an objective that should be easy to achieve - I see no reason why there couldn't be articles on individual elections for all major municipalities.

Again, if you disagree with this I would be more than happy to have an AFD debate, which would allow me to either continue with this project with renewed legitimacy or to stop wasting time on it. But I believe that these articles add to Wikipedia and are entirely in keeping with WP:N. Sarcasticidealist 07:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. I just thought I'd provide you with a few links to other municipal election articles. Again, I'm not claiming that the existence of these articles justifies the existence of the Edmonton ones, but I do want to demonstrate that articles on individual municipal elections are a well-established phenomenom on Wikipedia that have been seemlessly incorporated into their surroundings and that haven't caused Wikipedia to groan under the weight: Toronto, Windsor, assorted Belizean municipalities, etc. Sarcasticidealist 08:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, please don't refrain from AFDing the articles just on the basis that I put work into them. Such thinking is, as I understand it, contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia (though I certainly take your point about the onerous nature of tagging them all). Second, while I take your point about purely local media being insufficient to pass WP:N (although there are plenty of well-established articles that I'm aware of in other fields that rely exclusively on local media - here's one example that occurred to me completely at random - a city the size of Edmonton gets some amount of attention for its elections nation-wide. Although the media coverage is certainly primarily local, it's not exclusively local. Regarding your suggestion to merge the articles, to be honest I don't fully understand the purpose. I think having more articles for something like this is actually less cluttered than having fewer larger articles, provided that the articles are properly organized, which I think these ones are. I'm certainly open to hearing your justification for why this is not so, and I'd be prepared to do the legwork if the AFD process comes out with a consensus of merge, but the purpose isn't immediately apparent to me. Finally, as for the signature, four tildes is exactly how I sign each post and, to the best of my knowledge, I haven't done anything to my signature to prevent a link to my userpage from coming up. Advice? Sarcasticidealist 19:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I think I fixed the signature issue - thanks for your advice on that. As for the substance of our debate, I do see your point about the notability of "elections in Edmonton" being greater than the notability of any individual election. However, if we're going to have the information on Wikipedia (and I recognize that we're not necessarily in agreement about that - I'm just taking it as a first principle for the purpose of my point), we need to figure out in what form it's going to be most useful to the user (other considerations that might otherwise have to be considered, such as "using up" article names that might be more useful on other subjects, are mercifully absent here, since I can't imagine any other articles being confused with Edmonton municipal election, 1941). Given the sheer volume of information, I would think that most users would prefer to have the information sorted in a rational way (by date) among different articles, instead of having one massive article with all of the information (in which the various sets of election results would also look very similar to one another, thereby possibly breeding confusion as to exactly what section a user was reading at any given time). I would obviously prefer the merger solution to an outright deletion, but it still strikes me as the kind of unhappy compromise that's made solely for the sake of compromise.
I'm (somewhat) new to Wikipedia - is there somewhere we can go to involve other people in this discussion without actually going through the AFD process? Because, while I'm not willing to yield based solely on your say-so, I'd be happy to do so if I see that consensus is against me. Sarcasticidealist 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, *now* I've fixed the signature issue.Sarcasticidealist 20:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your help on this issue. One partial solution that I can propose: since 1968, all municipalities in the province of Alberta have held their elections on the same days. I would be entirely amenable to dealing with elections after that date in larger articles of the format Alberta municipal elections, 1968 which would include all of the 1968 municipal elections in Alberta, since these could be seen as part of a larger (more notable) event in a way that elections prior to 1968 couldn't be. Of course, that doesn't help us for any of the articles that exist now, but hopefully it gives us some consensus moving forward.Sarcasticidealist 20:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: script bug report[edit]

Fixed, thanks. ^demon[omg plz] 16:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

CSD AutoReason[edit]

I was informed earlier today about a bug in IE6. I've since fixed it per the suggestion and IE6 is working fine again. Just thought I'd let my spamlist know that they need to purge their local cache (Ctrl+F5 on most browsers) to get the latest version of the script. Regards, ^demon[omg plz] 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Template:Infobox Football All-Ireland 2[edit]

I did not place the tag on either template. Please look again carefully.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton Election RFC[edit]

Thanks for that. I've added my statement. I'll leave the articles be for a few days while we see if some consensus develops. Thanks for your reasonable approach to this whole issue.Sarcasticidealist 21:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, one more question: I know of a couple of other editors who'd likely be interested in this AFC. The thing is, being municipal politics nerds like myself, they'd be likely to take my side. I know the consensus process isn't a vote, but would it be acceptable to direct their attention to the AFC, or not? I wouldn't want to be seen as trying to stack the deck in my favour.Sarcasticidealist 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
They are existing Wikipedia editors who have worked on articles on municipal politics. So while they certainly have a "legitimate interest" in this discussion, they also have a predisposition to believe in the notability of a broader range of municipal politics articles than does the Wikipedia population at large. I'll try to think of a few more neutral places to post this.Sarcasticidealist 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Talk page redirects[edit]

Hi, i see you've pointed some of the orphaned talk pages i recently proposed for speedy deletion to their corresponding disambiguation pages' talk pages; is this really a good idea? There are no existing links that would benefit from such a redirect, and i can't think of a reason why someone wanting to comment on the redirect would want to end up on the DP's talk page instead. --Piet Delport 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(replied to at User talk:Piet Delport#Talk page redirects --Piet Delport)


I wasn't aware that the adjective "competent" was included in the spamming criteria. Do you normally run an effectiveness test on the spam pages you come across to see if they qualify?

Yes, a serious and valued contributor, as their extensive contribution history shows. Mmmmmmmm -- no. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of your removal of the tag. The tag was put back 20 minutes later by Calton and I agreed it was blatant spam. A user creating a userpage only to promote a rock band is advertising. If I had crossed the page on my patrol, I would probably have prodded the page instead of speedy deleting it, because we can't say it was blatant. But in my opinion this is a role account made to circumvent our A7 criteria, this was this user only contribution. -- lucasbfr talk 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem[edit]

I had much the same viewpoint as you, except that well, I think that any such list is going to have heavy problems reaching the RS/V bar. Have a good one. SirFozzie 18:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Templating the regulars[edit]

I do not think that User:Vinko Tsui fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because...Yes it would be better if he actually registered User:Vinko Tsui, and so technically this is a valid speedy

Note the contradiction. Perhaps you ought to read the material you use before "templating the regulars." --Calton | Talk 22:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do read the templates I use when i use them, and in this case I specifically edited after substing to remove parts that I didn't intened - Hmm, so you specifically intended to say that the page doesn't fit the speedy deletion criteria AND that it does fits the speedy deletion criteria? Neat trick there.
if a template msg says what I want to say, i will use it - Which apparently it didn't (see above), or else we wouldn't be having this conversation. --Calton | Talk 06:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you seem pretty slow to understand, I'll make it simple:
  • "Templating the regulars" -- using a template to send a message to a regular and long-time editor -- is insulting.
  • Using a template which you apparently didn't bother reading closely is even more insulting.
  • In your fumbling attempt at customizing the template -- you didn't even get the capitalization right, I'll note -- you said two contradictory things. It's called a "mixed message" -- ask someone about it -- and assuming your recipient needs to be a mind-reader to get your intent is a bad start.
  • Verbose ass-covering -- including the pretentious literary name-dropping -- doesn't impress me, either.
Sufficient? --Calton | Talk 07:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:I understand that some editors consider "Templating the regulars" to be insulting.
And yet you do it anyways.
I don't agree.
And if you'd thought about for half a second, you'd realize how immaterial that is. Hint: who is, in fact, the proper authority for what is considered insulting, the deliverer or the recipient? --Calton | Talk 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Some people consider all sorts of absurd things insulting. As long as I act reasonably I see no obligation to abide by any and every prejudice someone else may have.
Just keep digging there. So considering that "templating the regulars" is insulting is an absurd notion? And no, that's not an attempt at a gotcha, it's the only reasonable interpretation of your statement just above. But the logical steps:
1) Some editors consider "Templating the regulars" to be insulting.
2) You consider that notion absurd.
3) Despite your clear understanding of #1, you do it anyways.
4) Ergo, insulting some editors is okay, even if you can avoid it.
But since you have been so clear that you dislike templated messages, when i do something that I would normally notify you about via a template, I will simply not notify you
Ah, spite. So very mature. Have you considered, I dunno, writing an actual note, with sentences and everything that actually lay out your actual concerns, that actually attempt to communicate with someone who has enough experience in Wikipedia to not require reminding of very basic policies? Not all that difficult, really, and you don't even have to do any literary name-dropping, just simple declarative sentences. --Calton | Talk 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Correct, i do consider that notion absurd. Congratulations on understanding something I implied but did not state explicitly.
Ah, escalating from implicitly insulting someone's intelligence to doing so explicitly. It's sounding less and less like it was inadvertent in the first place.
Note that the template in question (which you repeatedly implied or stated that I did not read, although a look at the history would confirm my statement that I actually wrote it)...
So what if you originally created it? For precisions' sake, I'll amend that to "You didn't bother to reread the template before you applied it", or, probably more accurately, "You didn't bother to understand the template before you applied it."
It is true that too many editors use templates blindly.
Good, you're halfway to self-awareness. Small hints: what was the message thread on my Talk page just above your most recent set, and how grounded in actual policy was that one?
I recall one instance where an editor was accused of having been overly harsh in a particular message, and the response was "It's not my fault, I just used the standard template. It's the fault of the person who designed the template.
I recall that case. It was clearly a case of the editor not bothering to read the template before applying it, and going on and on with long defensive postings to deflect criticism and avoid responsibility for the ill feelings his thoughtless actions had caused. I don't think he made any literary allusions, though. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films by gory death scene (3rd nomination)[edit]

It appears that you reverted the clsoe of this. Dis you intend to do that, or was it an edit conflict or what?

"Or what." I was improving my arguments for the projectification of the article (which I thank you for acknowledging), and didn't even get a conflict box. I will request projectification when I can find the time; Fortunately, the closure of this AfD brings the number of my current major conflicts down to two. Unfortunately, one of them will require taking on David Gerard, Tony Sidaway and Phil Sandifer simultaneously. Expect getting bugged about the specifics within two weeks.

I can cry travesty until I'm blue in the face, but there was no actual breach of procedure, so DRV is out. Moving the article to project-space seems like the only option. This is too large a job for a single person, and even if it wasn't, it'd just meet its fourth AfD immediately if it failed to get a communal consensus before reposting. The edit history can be restored with the move, right? It'll be needed.--Kizor 23:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. "I'm not sure if I fully agree with those who opined delete, but the numerical consensus is clear [...]."
This is really an interesting and new experience. So far, whenever I was in the majority group favouring that an article be kept, the closing admin argued that "this is not a vote", i e that keep and delete votes are not counted and weighed against each other. Suddenly, out of the blue, there is not just such a thing as a "clear consensus", but even a "clear numerical consensus".
"If someone wants this moved to userspace or project-space in an attempt to come up with a version that satisfies the delete arguments as to sourcing and OR, drop me a note and we can discuss it, or go to WP:DRV."
I'm certainly not going to "go to WP:DRV": The last time I did so was enough experience in that field for me. I have asked at least four times for projectification of that list in the deletion debate, and I'm doing it right now again by dropping you a note. Best wishes, <KF> 22:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed reply. You have raised so many issues that I don't really know where to start. Well, let's give it a go.
First of all, when you say that "it seems from your note on my talk page that you think my close of this AfD was improper, incorrect, or unjustified" you are mistaken. All I did is report what I experienced in the past. To me, your decision is perfectly within the guidelines of Wikipedia policy. If my introductory remark seems to contain implicit criticism, it is because I've just come across yet another official Wikipedia guideline which I believe is too vague and thus open to interpretation of any kind. In other words: I may have implicitly criticized that guideline, but certainly not you or your decision.
It follows (hopefully) from the above that I am certainly not going to "report the matter on WP:ANI or WP:DRV or at WP:RFC" or anywhere else. It seems that the way I see things is in many cases only shared by a handful of others, so I usually keep out of edit wars (see, for example, the debate on spoiler warnings) or other unpleasant things and concentrate on arguing my case and eventually retreating when I realise that it's hopeless.
That was the case with the gory list as well, and if you reread my contributions to the gory deletion debate you will see that I'm saying exactly the same things here again. I'm not personally interested in keeping that list at all although as someone who enjoys watching and reading about films it made fascinating reading for me.
Other contributors may find the list helpful when working on film articles (I've said so before), and they should not be denied the chance to access it. I was not so much arguing (that was Kizor I suppose) to projectify it so that it can be rewritten and re-established as a proper Wikipedia article. (I wouldn't mind though at all if that happened.)
A disturbing phenomenon I have been witnessing for a long time now is that someone picks on one out of what must be thousands of lists that similarly fail all, or most, Wikipedia criteria for inclusion and gets that one list they have picked out (and on) deleted (with a very high success rate, due to the ease with which a "consensus" can be manufactured here at Wikipedia, see above) while all the others remain as they have always been. Strangely, it's even been established as a no-no (WP:WAX, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS) to refer to other unsuitable articles for the sake of argument.
If you have a look at the deletion debate again, I hope you'll find that that's what I said there as well. Best wishes, <KF> 05:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for your reply. I'm afraid I do not have a plan concerning the page in question because I'm not really interested in the subject matter and wouldn't be able to work on that list myself. Apart from many other things here at Wikipedia, what fascinated me right from the start of the project were collaborative compilations of data which could not be found anywhere else (List of songs phrased as questions, List of people predominantly seen wearing dark glasses, List of people by name, and all that stuff).
That was back in 2002 or 2003 or so when there simply were no policies against those lists. I considered them an asset. Now they have been identified as "unencyclopaedic" and are being relentlessly persecuted. They may be so if you apply traditional standards, but I originally thought that, using the Internet rather than paper, we might be able to redefine the conception of what an encyclopaedia should or might contain. Well, times have changed, so if people are no longer interested in that sort of thing I just can't pursue the matter further. All the best, <KF> 05:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


In this edit while leaving me a msg, you also deleted 90% of my exizxting talk page. I presume that this was not your intent, adn i admit that I am overdue for archiving. But please be more careful to avoid such edits in future. DES (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aigh! I'm sorry! That was my last edit on a late-night spree; my vision was quite literally blurring as my eyes lost focus and through the warm haze of degenerating consciousness I noticed I'd screwed up and was sure that I'd hit Ctrl-Z (undo) enough times to reverse it. Immediately afterwards I collapsed on my bed and fell asleep. Sorry!

they are not among my favorite wikipeide editors. But they do know what they are doing, they are not sutpid (although they can be foolish IMO) and DG in particular has a large positive reputation on wikipeida.

That's why I'm terrified.

I for one don't think thsi AfD was a travesty, even if iMO it wasn't a slam-dunk delete. (...) the numbers rule the day. and the numbers were hugely for deletion.

No, no. I don't fault you for handling that AfD. I can see that there was no other option, even a "relist to generate further discussion" would've caught flak. That was not a problem. What were travesties were
  • the lack of complaints of any kind before a deletion (okay, there was one, but it also complained about listing Jews on a list of human deaths, so...) that could've spurred a cooperative solution,
  • the delete votes demanding to know who could use such an article when there was a detailed explanation of who could right above them,
  • the admittedly impressive piece of rhetoric calling the closing admin to disregard all arguments that the list should be retained because of its usefulness while retaining what they were replies to, arguments that the list should be deleted because of its uselessness,
  • the "Delete - unencyclopedic" votes going unchallenged: I've tried, but can't see it as anything else than "This topic doesn't belong in the encyclopedia because this topic doesn't belong in an encyclopedia",
  • the "nonsense" voter who had, the last time we met, been AfDing and PRODding articles because they contain blasphemous content, also going unchallenged,
  • in particular, my own lackluster and insufficient effort.
I'm not trying to convince you, just showing where I'm coming from. And it's because all of those happened that I'm confident a new version can be hammered out at a wikiproject, which are designed for cooperation, instead of an AfD, which are designed for being at loggerheads. I'll start the process soon now, right once I clear up enough time for it. (I'd tell you my schedule, but once I make them I automatically break them. (seriously. I'm in ADHD testing.))
I hope that information is halpful to you. DES (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It is. Thank you for the explanation of the mechanics. As a matter of fact, thank you for remaining polite and respectful to those guilty of having the opposite opinion. Frankly it was a relief to see that such a thing is still possible. Your words are scrambled but your messages compare favorably to those of one-time arbitrators. --Kizor 11:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Nick Hern Books[edit]

While there are a large number of Google hits for the publisher, most of them have little to no information about the company. I'm still concerned about 1. notability 2. spam and 3. cut n paste job of the sole sentence contained in the article (I realize of course, this isn't what I tagged it for in the first place). I understand that a speedy deletion tag may not be appropriate, so if I nominate for deletion again, I will be sure to prod or AfD to make sure I'm following proper Wikipedia procedure. Eliz81 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


[1]. Tyrenius 01:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Template:Closing[edit]

You're welcome - anything that minimises edit conflicts is a good idea in my book. Graham87 04:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aubrey-Maturin Series[edit]

Hello, is there any chance we can get a demerge done for this series so that each book has its own individual article. Please see my comments in the discussion section of the article ref. this matter. At the moment, I feel the whole article is far too unwieldly with just a huge mass of information.

The main article should just contain a broad general overview of the series e.g. O'Brian's humour etc.Ivankinsman 09:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sara Calaway article - could you please help[edit]

We could use your help about the Sara Calaway article.

User:Thedeadmanandphenom created the Sara Calaway article a few days ago. It was quickly tagged by a fellow Wikipedian for speedy delete, and a few of us left messages on the article talkpage as well as the user's talk page about it. Other tags were also added, requesting cleanup and more sources. The user responded to the messages I left him, and I tried to give him constructive comments about how to improve the article. I even made some wordsmithing improvements to the article to show him how to do some things. He responded by adding the hangon tag at the top the article, and also added a comment on the article talk page that no one should be editing his article. A few of us responded to this comment, noting that this is not the way Wikipedia works - no one owns an article. A few hours later, the user had deleted the tags, and was in an edit war with another Wikipedian who kept restoring them. I left another constructive comment and got a response from the user that I thought had resolved things. The user left me a message (question) on my talk page about how to put pictures in an article and I referred him to Wikipedia:Images. That was yesterday (June 23, 2007).

Today (June 24, 2007), I looked at the article and found all tags gone. Also, there is no history of what happened before today. It looks as if the article has been recreated new, as a copy and paste of what the old article looked like. It has my wordsmith edits, for example. At a minimum, there should be a speedy delete tag, a Cleanup tag and a more sources tag.

I think it might be time for an admin to intervene, and I respectfully ask for your assistance. If there is a Wikipedia page that describes the process I should be following in these kinds of situations, I would appreciate it if you could direct me to it for future use. Thanks. Truthanado 14:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I understand what happened and I think it's good to discuss as AfD. In general, the current article is in better shape than the one that was previously deleted; it is shorter and the info in it is at least debatable as notable and worthy of Wikipedia. I think I will do some research on other WWE articles and specifically how Wikipedia handles wives, and then comment on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Calaway page. Thanks again. Truthanado 21:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aubrey-Maturin Series[edit]

Hello, I am trying to set up a new page for each one of Patrick O'Brian's novels that don't have one already.

Can you tell me how I can link, for example, the novel HMS Surprise to a new page. I put in HMS Surprise main article (just like the Post Captain above) but it just links back to the same page/info. Not sure how I can change this...Ivankinsman 15:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Forest Oak Middle School[edit]

I just noticed this article was undeleted and noticed the comments on the deleting admin's talk page. I just wanted to drop you a note to mention that I did actually mean db-a1 and not db-a7 because I agree with your position that a school isn't covered by a7. I'm not really sure that the content in the article at present is enough to stand up to a1, but I'm hopeful that your interest in the article foreshadows improvements you hope to make. I have very mixed feelings about the notability of middle and primary schools, but I'm not really in a place right where I'm trying to do more in my patrolling than getting articles without sources marked and kicking the speedy deletion material. Erechtheus 01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your restoration of The Lying Game[edit]

Hi, I'm unclear about your motive for undeleting this article. Do you believe that there is merit in the argument that it should remain on Wikipedia, or is there another reason? --Tony Sidaway 09:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me be clear. I undeleted this because whatever else it was, it wasn't a speedy. It wasn't an A7, because it wasn't about a person, group, firm, or website. It is just possible that references might have been found at an AfD that would make it notable enough to be kept, although i doubt it. I would have placed it on AfD, but there was an AfD in progress, and I was unwilling to revert the close of that without some support from DRV. Had I encountered this untagged, i would probably have tagged it with prod, and possibly {{hoax}}. Perhaps this was a case where something that clearly wasn't a speedy shouldn't have been argued over, given that the chance of it being kept as a valid article is low. But I am seeing far too many invalid speedys recently, and given that some editors, and indeed some admins, infer precedents from lack of action (look at the spoiler debate) failing to act on this kind of invalid speedy is tacitly agreeing to an extension of the speedy criteria that is IMO a vary bad idea. DES (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I've been there. I'm absolutely with you on restoring bad speedies, and looking at your undeletions I think that you usually show excellent judgement in those that you restore. The reason I asked was that I suspected that you might be tending to fetishize the process. Do you honestly think we need to spend days discussing this deletion? --Tony Sidaway 15:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I very rarely restore, to avoid even the hint of wheel-warring, I usually take to DRV. As to this one, i think the process exists for a reason, and there is no good reason to avoid it here. I think there is a small but non-zero chance this this silly game has actually become popular enough on college campuses (I've seen far sillier things that have) that we should have an article about it as a social phenomenon. I think that it is worth delaying deletion in case anyone finds the references that would demonstrate that. You ask if I think that "we need to spend days discussing this deletion". I don't think that if it were left on AfD, or prod, it would consume much of anyone's time. If it were on prod it would consume a few minutes of an admins time in 5 days, and no one need "discuss" it otherwise unless such person actually becomes untested and chooses to discuss, or unless references are found, in which case it would be worth while. If it were left on AfD I would expect and the maximum probability that two or three people would each spend 30 seconds !voting "delete", and after 5 days an admin would spend perhaps 2 minutes closing, unless someone got interested and actually found something worth noting, and again, in that possible though unlikely case, it would be worth the time spent. I think the total time spent would be less than 5 wikipedean-minutes -- less than you and I alone have already spent on this conversation. I think those 5 minutes would be worth investing against the small but non-zero chance of a real article emerging. Maybe to save time i should just have reverted the improper AfD close that went along with the improper speedy, rather than going to DRV. That is perhaps where I "fetishized process", and now I think if something like this comes along again, that is what I will do.
Also I've become very very frustrated with the admin who deleted this. He has a fast finger on the delete button, i think, and he doesn't seem to communicate much afterwards, either with frustrated newbies or with experienced editors. Please take a look at User talk:Naconkantari and then if you are willing to invest some time, at his logs I see lots of invalid or marginal speedies, and lots of things that probably should be deleted, but clearly aren't speedies. Note also the discussion at WP:AN#24 characters too long for a username? Any suggestions? DES (talk) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
just breaking in, but I haven't undeleted either, being a new admin & a known inclusionist, I wanted some support first. . DGG 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I think I would probably have tagged this one as prod myself. If an administrator is doing chronically poor calls, please consider RfC. --Tony Sidaway 15:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I have been thinking about just that. But I would need a second certifier. Interested? DES (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any serious issues with that admins' conduct. --Tony Sidaway 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you aren't then obviously you shouldn't be involved with an RfC. I'm curious, did you look at his talk page? He was the deleting admin on The Lying Game, X-sample, Liam Hunt, Kim Amidon, 23andMe, Blessthefall (which he also salted), Didar Singh Bains , Kelly Moore (non-fiction writer) (which he also salted), Spyware_Terminator (where he failed to link to the prior AfD, thus confusing the situation on DRV significantly), and Velvet D’Amour all of which are now or recently have been on DRV, and in none of which cases has he helpfully communicated with those inquiring about or questioning the deletion. While in the case of Spyware_Terminator the user involved does not seem to respond to polite communication anyway, in several of these cases newbies made polite requests, only to be told "take it to DRV" and nothing more, and in others experienced editors (including but not limited to myself) received no response at all. Do you think there is no problem with any of that? How would you comment in an RfC with evidence to that effect? DES (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Are those all recent deletions? All of them seem at present to be redlinks, except one which is a salted deletion page. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that all have been deleted in the past few days -- all are listed on WP:DRV for 24, 25, or 26 June, with log links in each case. Most if not all seem to have been raised on his talk page since 23 June. I see that there have been apparently similar issues in the past, including one on DRV on 9 June, but I haven't checked into the merits of those as yet. DES (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Note a similar pattern in the deletion of Onesidezero (designer), discussed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 9. Interestignly enough, I did some work adding sources to the related article Inkthis DES (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested in certifying an RfC with Naconkantari. In addition to his recent speedy deletions, he:

  1. Applies blocks much more severely than guidelines indicate (including incidents where he indefinitely blocked registered user accounts which have made a single harmless test edit - "hello" or similar)
  2. Deleted many user pages of indefinitely blocked sockpuppets in spite of specific instructions to carefully check each page to ensure that they are not socks before deletion
  3. Deleted thousands of fair use images without checking them to see if the deletion was correct. Originally, {{Dated dfu}} stated that a user should add a rationale but leave the template so an admin could review it. The template was changed on June 5, allowing any user who adds a rationale to remove it. Users who had already added rationales had no way of knowing that the criteria had changed. On June 6 Naconkantari deleted all disputed fair use images from May 31 and June 1 without checking to see if a rationale had been added or if the tagging was legitimate in the first place. He did not remove the images from any pages where they appeared; he just left red links. See [User:TomTheHand/Fair use] for a full list of deleted images which Spike Wilbury‎ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I are attempting to review. There are 3148 of them.

In the above deletion incidents, Naconkantari has undeleted wrongly deleted pages and images on specific request but made no attempt to change his actions or review and fix the mistakes himself. In his replies, he always implied that deleting without review was the correct action and the incorrect deletion was the fault of whoever left the template there. TomTheHand 17:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Edmonton municipal election, 1941[edit]

While I think it's safe to say that the RFC didn't get the response that either of us would have liked, the response it did get seems to be in favour of the articles' continued existence. Accordingly, I'd like to start on finishing up the series in the next couple of days. As before, I wouldn't object to an AfD to settle this a little more formally, but that's obviously your call. I want to hank you again for your civility, reasonableness, and help in dealing with this issue.Sarcasticidealist 21:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about the merits of merging. Personally, I think you are not, so I will continue editing as I was before until I see a consensus that I should do otherwise. Perhaps, in time, another user will be bold and go through with that merger, and discussion will produce consensus one way or another. Such is how Wikipedia chugs along, I guess. Sorry to see you get tied up with the sort of nonsense that's been occupying your time. Sometimes even a collection of reasonable people with strong opinions can produce unreasonable conflict. In any event, it has been a pleasure dealing with you. Sarcasticidealist 03:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

personal attacks by User:867xx5209[edit]

Hello, DESiegel ... my request for intervention at WP:AN/I#User:867xx5209 and personal attacks by their sock/meatpuppets regarding the personal attacks against me by 867xx5209 (talk · contribs) on the DRV page for CLSA (and several article discussion pages) is being ignored ... is it because I'm using an IP account? I have also discovered that I cannot post the complaint that I have been documenting about their activities onto the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets project as an IP account. <Sigh!>

I'm asking you, and a few other admins who are familiar with this incident, for any advice/assistance that you can render ... please reply on my current talk page so as not to fragment comments by others ... BTW, my recent inactivity (and possibly slow response) is due to a medical emergency involving a family member. Thnx! — (talk · contribs) 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


I have posted at AN/I due to his unwillingness to discuss his actions. --Spike Wilbury talk 22:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I will, thank you. --Spike Wilbury talk 23:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I will check to see if I have any additional info and add it. I try to track this sort of think off-wiki.--and by the way, do you know about WikiEn-L? much less restrained discussions there from all sides. My email is enabled.DGG 15:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC) &, for the list, a few good people join in who don't like to talk here. I also like the centralization of discussions. Threads are easier than multiple pages. (and I'm simply used to it because that's the way I do most of my work in the RW) DGG 16:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added some links to article deletions to the RFC draft. --Spike Wilbury talk 18:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


I am not sure what this Admins problem is, but he has been utterly rude to me in reference to the Gayla Earlene page. I am an entertainment expert and I understand notability. However, he could have went to the talk page and gave me some advice or something instead of just deleting me. I mean I was on my way back to expand the article. I even put and expand tag on it! By the time I got back, it was gone! I recreated it and placed a hangon tag, and it was gone again. I do not know what to do now. CAn you please advise? Junebug52 23:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Two things[edit]

First, you really should have your email enabled so that people whom you've blocked can contact you. Second, regarding the RFC draft, you may want to consider adding specific examples of deletions that have been overturned on DRV or look like they very likely will be overturned. JoshuaZ 18:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I had email to me enabled, I've had it enabled for years, since before i first became an admin. i don't encourage its use much, but i have it. However, when you sent this note, i double checked my preferences. it seems that some time after I registered and provided my email address and activated the 'allow emails from other users" feature, wikimedia added the feature of confirmation of email addresses, and i had never confirmed mine. it seems that if your address is unconfirmed, the email features are now all disabled. Arrgh! They should have notified users who already had email active when this feature was implemented.
Adding soecific examples is next on my list, thanks. DES (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added some examples, please see item 3 in the Deletion section. --Spike Wilbury talk 18:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. DES (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Computer Science Conference Rankings[edit]

Agreed, but I will definitely prod, and if necessary, go to an AfD. No, wait - someone beat me to it on AfD. (Guess how I'm voting?)

By the way, please sign your comments on my user page. As you are an admin, I assume you just slipped up there. It happens. Realkyhick 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Can you check if Gamesaving should be deleted or not? I thought it had some potential so I placed a notability tag on it, but right now it just seems to be fodder for IP vandals. -WarthogDemon 21:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Er, sorry I probably typed my message wrong. I wasn't suggesting that it should be deleted due to vandalism. I was just asking you to check since if it wasn't that good an article to begin with, reverting the vandalism is pretty pointless if it can be deleted. Anyways, thanks again. :) -WarthogDemon 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Sin City Irish RFC[edit]

Just FYI, I would submit that while teams might not be covered by A7, clubs are. The C in the title stands for club. That was the thought process that led to me using the template. I'm not trying to contest your choice to move to a notability template, but I felt it wise to explain where I was coming from. Erechtheus 21:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It's my understanding that a lot of sports clubs in areas where that nomenclature is more common (like Europe) are indeed clubs. One must join, and several different levels of team are supported. Some clubs would be notable because they're basically professional teams in addition to being clubs, but some aren't. The question in my mind is what is meant in the article we're talking about, and it's not clear. As far as prod goes, it's clear that it would be a controversial deletion due to the use of hangon. I'd think anyone inclined to test the article would want to go to AfD. I currently think most AfDs are best raised after some opportunity for people to flesh out the article, so I probably won't rush with this even if I do choose to pursue it eventually. Erechtheus 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I hear you there. That's why I said I wasn't trying to contest your action. I know not every one of my speedys are perfect, and I try to take the time to talk them out when I'm mistaken. Erechtheus 22:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Naconkantari appears to have left again, so the RFC may not be necessary. It is unfortunate that his response to constructive criticism is to leave rather than have a discussion. --Spike Wilbury talk 22:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He has said that before -- i suspect it won't stick this time either. I agree that thsi is an unforunate response. I will polish up the RFC in any case, and have it ready when/if he returns. DES (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
He has requested removal of sysop access on Meta. --Spike Wilbury talk 22:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Really. Can you give me a link there? Would that also remove his sysop acces on other projects, such as this one? DES (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
He means, Naconkantari requested that the stewards remove his sysop status on enwiki. Based on the rights logs, Naconkantari has never made such a request before. Dragons flight 22:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. That is fairly clar cut -- although as I understand it, since this removal was coluntary, he could alwasys ask for the bit back when and if he chooses to do so. I am sorry that he has taken this route -- ithoght that he was a caluabel contribvutor, but oen who was a loot to quick on the fire button, both for deletes and blocks. Still, the vast majority of his deletes were IMO correct or at elast reasonable, even if the percentage of problem cases was rather too high. DES (talk) 22:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Joey Jett[edit]

Joey Jett


I'm relatively new to this and was trying to begin a page for Joey Jett. Joey is a famous 9 year old skateboarder who is the youngest in the world to perform certain tricks in competition. He has been invited for the past two years to perform at the AST Dew Tours and will turn pro in a year or so. He has skated with pros from around the world like Shaun White, Bucky Lasek, Bob Burnquist.

My original intent was to start a page that I would later edit with more info. The first time I saved it and went back and it had been deleted. So I started it again, and it was deleted and protected. The reason is something about biographical significance.

I'm really not sure what this means or how to get it unprotected to be able to add more info.

Naconkantari was the admin that did the deletes and protection and it appears they are gone.

Thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SiriusCreative (talkcontribs) 21:32, 28 June 2007


You should be aware that your name is being mentioned on ANI in this thread. Regards, Newyorkbrad 03:07, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for lettign me know. I have responsed. DES (talk) 04:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

About my CSD of Boom[edit]

hi -

Message received and understood concerning the CSD of Boom. I myself am a believer in the importance of process.

--Jddphd 02:53, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark Bellinghaus- deletion of page[edit]

You must first forgive me as half of what I read here with all the words like tildes and IP's I feel a bit over my head!

But the reason I am contacting you is to discuss Bellinghaus' page.

I feel that he has not very much relevance in Modern culture (unless you think his acting warrants attention) and his page should be nominated for deletiong due to misleading information, relevance and improper use of links.

HEre are a FEW of the reasons:

1) Mark did not shut down the Queen Mary Marilyn Monroe Exhibit. (check with the Queen Mary to source this one.) Much to the disappointment of Marilyn fans everywhere the MM exhibit was actually EXTENDED and closed at a later date than intended!

2) Although a lawsuit was brought to court against the Queen Mary.. MARK BELLINGHAUS was NOT the Plaintiff! It was in fact Ernest Cunningham and Emily Sadjady. Mark's ONLY connection to this case is a financial one, no where was he listed as a plaintiff, witness or expert.

3) Mark was not even considered as an EXPERT WITNESS in the case. The EXPERT WITNESS to this case was Mr GREGORY SCHRIENER (you are most welcome to check with Mr. Braunstein, Esq who was the plaintiff's lawyer or Mr. Schreiner himself

4) Mark is currently using his Wiki page to link to sites/ blogs of his own making that are critical of people with AIDS and other personal items. The concern here is that they are filled with slanderous information and if read by anyone (I beg you to take the time to do so) would read as the ramblings of an incoherent, bigoted and racist person.

5) Mark Bellinghaus self proclaims he has the largest most comprehensive collection of personal Marilyn Monroe memorabilia. This at BEST is arguable. In the world of collecting (of which I know quite a bit considering that I have dedicated some 30 years to studying the history of Marilyn Monroe and ahve been used on books and documentaries as a reference of expertise) there are far more comprehensive and larger collections out there than Marks. Again if you would like references I refer you to Greg Schriener the premiere collector of Marilyn Monroe cited in many bios on Marilyn including Donald Spoto and Matthew Smith to name a few. OR Spanish Marilyn Monroe collector Maite whose collection was so large she has now published two books on it. This is a very subjective item and as I said before at best arguable.

6) If Mr. Bellinhaus' Wiki page has ANY relevance at all it only has to do with his acting that took place in Germany. His career in America is limited to a one-lined role in the circa 1980's film "In The Name Of The Rose".

7) The line in his biography about "Questioning" the book by June DiMaggio seems extremely dubious to include on Wiki. While I too question the book, I don't know why this has relevance? I mean... we can all "question" something... but does it warrant space on Wikipedia? I question Ann Coulter's book constantly... should I create a page on myself... I think you see my point.

8) I could go on and on.. and if you wish me to then let me know.. but I think this one line in his bio says it all: "His lengthy, scathing reviews of books he considers inaccurate are regularly received, but not displayed, by" THERE is a REASON for this.. Mark has been removed from EVERY single self respecting site on the internet. He is banned from Yahoo! clubs, Amazon,, Topix, etc.. and is currently on probation by Ebay.

9) I must also add here that Mark Bellinghaus writes that he is a "He is a guest lecturer on Marilyn Monroe, at the University of Southern California." Per USC Professor Lois Banner, who you may feel free to contact on this, Mark attended ONE day at USC for one of Mrs. Banner's classes and answered questions regarding Marilyn Monroe. A far cry from a "guest lecturer!"

Again... happy to continue to fine tooth comb his PAGES to give you a list of his profiles inaccuracies and exaggerations.

I thank you for your time in reviewing this..

J. Adams 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC) 6/30/2007 23:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)