User talk:Od Mishehu/Archive6

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flak (musician)

I noticed that you speedy deleted the Flak (musician), but it did however meet the requirements just moments before it was deleted. Please undelete this page, other wise my past 4 hours would have been wasted time.OrangeDeoxys (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In what way is this musician important? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
That Musician is part of a band called Cross Bred Mongrels, and named the famous asutralian hiphop band named Hilltop Hoods in a Coles carpark. OrangeDeoxys (talk) 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Jane Austen

Whoa, I just realized you protected it until March 18. Isn't that a little excessive? Maybe shorten it up some? Say, Feb. 27th or so? Well, I actually would prefer today, but I'll compromise. kthxbai. -- (talk) 14:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The duration of the semi protection tends to go up each time. Last time it was 2 weeks, so this time it's longer. In the meantime, if you want to edit the page, you can do one of two things:
  1. Create an account - and then in a few days (I think 4, but I'm not sure) you can edit it, since it's only semi-protcted.
  2. Request it on the talk page, and use an {{editprotected}} tag to attract other users to it.
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ha-omnam raq Od Mishehu?

Please refer to my request, to which nobody has referred yet. Thank you. Eliko (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this one. I think not, as it's prefering one version over an other - something an admin shouldn't do. I'm not sure, however, if the 3RR violation changes things enough. I think a more experienced admin should check this one out. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My requset is not only "preferring one version over another", but rather is preferring one legal version over a version which violates the 3RR when being protected! i.e. this is a special combination of two problems: 1. the current version violates the 3RR. 2. the current version - which violates the 3RR - is being protected now, thus preventing the other users from fixing that version which violates the 3RR! However, if you really think that you are not a sufficiently "experienced admin" for deciding - so could you please pass my requset to "a more experienced admin"? I don't know who such an administrator may be. Thank you. Eliko (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Administrators' noticeboard is probably the best place to request it if it went too long undealt with. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you seem to be hesitant to respond to this because you're new, let me clear things up for you: the answer is emphatically no. Eliko's request is, as you said, asking you to prefer one version over another. There is no overt consensus for, no vandalism in, and nothing "illegal" about the current version. Eliko has been spamming the talk pages of several admins, including myself, about this matter, further emphasizing the fact that the answer is no. -- tariqabjotu 13:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Calm down. It seems that something has annoyed you, right? What is it? Maybe this is what you call "spamming"? If this is what has annoyed you - then I apologize: it was not on purpose; Note that my request on the noticeboard was removed (not archived but rather: removed), and that's why I referred to other admins who may see what I consider as an objective problem.
What I've been asking is (in my opinion) - emphatically - not (as you say) to "prefer one version over another", nor to undo the "wrong" version (since such a request would be absolutely subjective: nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to prefer objectively the latest legal version - over a version which violates the 3RR, or rather: to undo the version which violates the 3RR. Such a request is absolutlely legitimate and backed by objective criteria (not like any hypothetical request for subjectively preferring a "better" version over a "wrong" version). If you don't think that a version which violates the 3RR is illegal, then express your opinion (as emphatically as you can), and I promise that your opinion will be taken into account - just as Od Mishehu's hesitant opinion (which is not less legitimate than yours) will be taken into account, but please don't prevent me from taking legitimate steps for solving what I consider as an objective problem.
To sum up: we have now three opinions: a) your opinion - which is emphatically: the request is illegitimate, b) my opinion - which is empahtically: the request is legitimate, and: c) Od Mishehu's opinion - which is hasitant. In such a case - the best legitimate solution is (in my opinion): referring to the noticeboard, and this is exactly what I have done, but my message was removed (not archived but rather: removed), and this is a severe problem, even more severe than the current issue.
I hope you see the problem. Eliko (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Username

As I said to Gimmetrow, it was reported to UAA as a spam account, I checked contributions and saw they were all promotional in nature and thus the account was blocked for being promotional. From memory, the account has no edits that weren't promotional, account creation was not blocked, therefore I suggest advising the user to simply create a new account and beware of spamming in the future. Regards, SGGH speak! 16:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Vietnam

Hello עוד מישהו just a quick question concerning the article History of the Jews in Vietnam. When I tagged for speedy, I did not see the mention to Wikipedia on the site that I referenced and would swear it was not there. However, I did notice the reference after your comment on declining the deletion and I rechecked the site. Did I overlook the first time around or is there a program that allows you to interrogate a site to see its history? If so would appreciate you educating me. Thanks for your help. Shoessss |  Chat  07:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed a copy of the speedy tag on that page, this fact alerted me to think that it copied from Wikipedia. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Ahh - so no special powers than :-). Just me overlooking! Thanks for the help. However, I was hoping you had a special bot that I could Persuade you to share. Thanks again. Shoessss |  Chat  07:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you made a mistake that I could have also made. However, a number of thuings you could have possibly noticed were:
  1. The end of the first paragraph has a small "citation needed", which links to a page called "Wikipedia:Citation_needed". This makes sense in Wikipedia, but not there.
  2. If you let your web browser search for the word "Wikipedia", it would have found it.
עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Now you sound like my wife :-) "...You could of noticed this...Why didn't you see that and etc." Again thanks for your help. Shoessss |  Chat  08:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


I have added a GFDL-compatible license at the original article's source and respectfully request that you undelete the article. I am new at Wikipedia and am willing to make other adjustments that may be required. Also, as to conflict of interest claims, my article was independently reviewed and found to be an objective history in accordance with conventions established by WikiProject Radio Stations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcoco01830 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

RMHCSC Ronald McDonald House Charities Southern California

Hi, I created a article to increase the awareness of the Ronald McDonald House Charities - Southern California. I am not quite sure what is the reason for the page delete. I know there is an article regarding RMHC, can we at least add the RMHCSC link to the main site? Do you have any suggestions?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Aruna Sairam

You recently deleted the above referenced page for lack of asserted notability. A copyright interview from The New Sunday Express here, world here, and page about 2006 Carnegie Hall concert here may well help establish the required notability, and I would request that, if you agree, you restore the page. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because the article, as it was until the time of deletion, didn't show importance. The outcome of a recent deletion review of an other deletion of mine came out as "speedy deletion endorsed, no indication in the article of subject's importance or significance, no prejudice to the writing of a version which does establish notability" - I think that would apply here, too. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No disagreement. However, I believe that, as it stands, the subject can be demonstrated as notable, even if the earlier content doesn't indicate that. I would I think add the references I indicated above to the article in question were it deleted, probably within no more than I day or two (things get hectic around the end of the month with portals and all) but it would be useful to be able to start out with whatever was already there so that I could take advantage of whatever might have been useful in it. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
There wasn't that much there, anyway. I don't see any reason to undelete it - just write a good stub, indicating the importance of the subject. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fair. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Od, did you actually bother to do a basic search to assert whether the topic is notable? Administrators with initiative have managed to see that the editor has placed these speedy-delete templates unnecessarily, as evidenced here and here. In fact, this administrator has done a much more constructive thing of leaving a relevant tag so that the article can be improved here, while the other administrator was bold to make the necessary edit. I doubt very much that you are incapable of taking more constructive steps like these administrators, so please consider taking these sort of constructive steps in the future. And in case you are going to reply by trying to avoid the fact that the article need not have been deleted, it would be much more preferrable if you undeleted it and left it at that - in case you didn't notice, there are editors who are prepared to make the necessary changes from what it was rather than having to recreate it altogether from scratch. Thank you! Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC) - WikiProject India Assessment Department

Kevin McKenzie (dancer/choreographer/direcotr)

I have moved this article to this link again and ask that you delete the one (of the same content) which is titled, Kevin McKenzie (ballet dancer)... the former one I mention above is definitely a more accurate title for this man. Thanks!Queenofthewilis (talk) 13:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted article under A7

Hi there Od Mishehu. I noticed the Universiti Putra Malaysia Students Representative Council article was deleted under section A7. The structure of the content is similar to UNIMAS Student Representative Council and I had tried to minimize any content which was deemed as popularity. Could I get an advice on what went wrong so I could actually edit it. The article is about a student council very much similar to any student body in universities. Hope for a speedy response. Thank you. 10:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What's important about them? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the explanation of a student body organization which comprises of 17,000 undergraduate members, similar as Oxford University Student Union and other universities. It also does introduce the different concept of Malaysian student body system in which is is based solely on legislative unlike the United States system which has judiciary, legislative and executive. It would really help to educate Malaysian students on the electoral system of the respective universities. I hope the article can be considered as the content is very much similar to UNIMAS which has not been deleted by section A7. Thanks. 11:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Putrampp (talkcontribs)

I thank you for the consideration and would add up more of the notability and references in the next 4-5 days. thanks u so much. 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Od Meishu, I just updated the reference but I couldn't get more of the english references. There are some in Malay language however. Could you advice me on the further requirements to avoid the article from being tagged as cleanup? I thank you so much for your time.

11:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Cleanup}} isn't my field. See if you can find someone who does deal with that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cooperative Learning Institute

Please read the second paragraph here [[1]] :

"As a first step to build cooperation in communities, analysts at cooperative learning institute perform community analysis that helps them to understand the diversified needs of the community. Understanding the needs of community will be an output of the area where the community is working, their objectives and mission, procedures to accomplish their mission."

now from the article:

"As a first step to build cooperation in communities, analysts at cooperative learning institute perform community analysis that helps them to understand the diversified needs of the community. Understanding the needs of community will be an output of the area where the community is working, their objectives and mission, procedures to accomplish their mission."

Please read the sixth and seventh paragraph here [[2]]: "Modeling will be very complex when people in hierarchy want to maintain a status-quo and do not want people to grow and compete.

Separate models are then prepared for the management heading the community about the challenges not taking the names of individuals and planned for some policy level enhancements, changes in the standard operating procedures of the community."

now from the article: "Modeling will be very complex when people in hierarchy want to maintain a status-quo and do not want people to grow and compete.

Separate models are then prepared for the management heading the community about the challenges not taking the names of individuals and planned for some policy level enhancements, changes in the standard operating procedures of the community."

I'm putting the tag back up I put a new tag (spam) it is a copy straight from their website, and is not notable. Please adviseJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you help?

Hi. Thanks for your help unblocking the block on my page. Could you help with one more thing please? I got banned for leaving a comment on Jimbo's talk page. I would still like to leave a comment but I don't want to get banned again. Can you let me know where I can I get approval to leave the comment. Sorry to pick on you for help, I tried asking the person that removed the comment what was wrong but they banned me and didn't answer. It's the first comment I made if you'd like to see it. ThanksAntHolnes (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked because an admin thought you were a sockpuppet, meaning that the AntHolnes account is an account being used by some user with an other account, pretending to be a new user, in order to avoid being blocked for violating some rule. You weren't blocked for the content - only because of some suspicion about the account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for replying. I've read your policies on banning and sock puppets and banning me for being a sock puppet just doesn't make sense when compared to what they say. That's not really your problem though I suppose, I need to speak to the committee about that apparently. So you're saying it's OK if I leave a comment that disagrees with people that don't want the recent information added. I'll try it. Thanks AntHolnes (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to disagree with anyone here, just keep 2 rules in mind: Assume good faith and be civil. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Expand problem

I think something about the change you made (maybe removing the "if") is making "{[[:Category:|Cat:]]" appear in some articles, such as Emma (windstorm). Shawis (talk) 08:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Declined speedy

You declined the speedy I placed on Wikipedia talk:Rouge admin/Former category talk page‎, with a note that it was moved from its former location. It's not anchored to anything; do we routinely keep talk pages that lack an associated article or category page? I'm sure you're aware of all Teh Drama™ surrounding this deleted category, and this just seems to be more of the same (flipping off the community because of a decision disliked by certain editors). Do I need to take it to xfD, and if so, which one? It's not an article, it's not a category or a user category (but the talk page), it's not a template, and MfD doesn't seem to apply either. Horologium (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw, in its history, what seemed to be a move designed to prevent its deletion under G8, presumably because the original mover thought it had important discussion which shouldn't be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'll talk with him, as I don't think that was what he had in mind. I hadn't checked who moved it, assuming it was another pointy move to go with all of the others over this cat; in this case, it appears to be a different case, since the admin who moved it also deleted the user category. Horologium (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Beast of Dean

Hi, i noticed you deleted the article, Beast of Dean because it was "is substantially identical to the version of the page that was deleted". the article i started had been arround for almost six months before another user (an IP adress, i think) added quite a bit to it. I never got a chance to read his/her edits befeore the page was deleted, but from what i skimmed it sounded rather hoaxish, with lots of unimportant, unsouced statements which the page i started did'nt have. If what you deleted looked like a nonsencical hoax, please let me know so i can resurect this page as it was before some vandal got it deleted. thanks,Ryan shell (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It did look somewhat hoaxish, and like an expansion of your earlier version. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but I didn't write any of the other versions of this article (the others that were deleted). It seems someone is continually editing this page and has caused it to be deleted more than once. when i get time, i'll start the article again and keep an eye out for this IP adress. Maybe if i keep reverting his/her edits, he/she will simply give up.Ryan shell (talk) 16:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I don't have any records on that or recollection of it any more - it was almost 2 years ago. However, that fact that he would create the account on May 3 2006 and not use it until March 5 2008 is very odd, don't you think? Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see talk page for the eastern synod

I have replied to your comments. I am sure you will find them helpful. Take care Thright (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)thright


You have deleted the page I started to make using an article I wrote sometime ago. You said it was blatant publicity to which I do not agree. Whitesun is a legend in the world of artificial tanning. One of the first to produce a solarium anyway. There is an article on Mercedes-Benz, BMW as they are leaders in the automotive market why not insert info on the leaders of other industry sectors. Please revise your decision because a company like Whitsun would not even need publicity to be frank. Zamolkses (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at the deleted version, and agree with its deletion under WP:CSD#G11.--Hu12 (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That only means one thing, one that really makes something legendary in any domain cannot appear on wikipedia because some wannabe "professionals" don't let you. So much about open source and all. By the way Wikipedia could get a law suit for this because of you guys. I have nothing to do with Whitesun but one day someone in one of these companies will sue you for non competitive advertising!!!Zamolkses (talk) 17:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the phrase "has always been a step further in designing and producing tanning equipment" is one that I'd expect to see in an ad, not in an article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Advertising?.. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. I took a phrase from his ad to show him why I think it's an ad. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Absoluty agree, blatent advert at that!--Hu12 (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can change that phrase. I accept the fact that I am new around here, and I am not a native English speaker. Maybe if anyone would like to see my article and give me a few advices on how to make it become a Wikipedia article. Zamolkses (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Obama edit

See my comment below yours. I'm sure you were not aware of the article's previous discussions about keeping that section heading. The use of "Political advocacy" has satisfied consensus for more than one year and the last time it was changed (in July 2007) the revert came immediately afterwards and the heading has stayed there until today. Kindly consider reverting your edit? Thanks. --HailFire (talk) 07:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware of this. I did take a look at the current dispute, and looked at the articles of his current competitor (Hillary Clinton) and of the probable candidate in thee other party - but I didn't (nor would it be reasonable to expect me to) check every edit done in the past several months.
The other edit I did to the Obama article, fixing the typo, I left - I don't think anyone could possibly tell me that it is under dispute. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your management of either of these requests. Thanks for the prompt attention, and have a nice day! --HailFire (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Whittard of Chelsea

Hmm. I just declined that speedy, although as it stood it didn't really assert notability I admit. As it happens the title was incorrect and should be Whittards of Chelsea. I'm amazed there's no article already actually. I won't undelete as the title was wrong but are you okay with me creating it again under the correct title (and sorting out some WP:N and WP:RS issues) ? Pedro :  Chat  10:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

If you can write an article about the company which will pass CSD A7, feel free. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Template:Content

I have turned off the cascading of the protection of {{Content}}, in accordance with the standard protection of templates. The template is still full-protected, but pages transcluded within it (such as its documentation page) are no longer covered by the protection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, didn't mean to cascade it. Rich Farmbrough, 09:18 13 March 2008 (GMT).

Deletion of KnickerPicker Article

Hi I emailed you as I don't know how to use this talk functionality and await your reply. I would like to know why you deleted my KnickerPicker article? I didn't know how to do the referencing to sentences but I included all the relevant links as a list in my article along with a note in the message edit box that I would like help with referencing. I think the fact it has been featured in Marketing Trade Publications, the Fashion Press and the British Newspaper Press demonstrates it's value as a notable issue. Could you not offer tips on how i may rewrite it so it seems more neutral, as I thought it was quite neutral. Or could you put a warning on it like you have on the Figleaves page? Theres so many warnings on their page disputing it's credibility I'm curious to know why theres hasn't been removed? Are they paying for it to be kept up??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelingeriefan (talkcontribs) 13:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Figleaves page has problems, but it has a solid basis for an encyclopedia article. What you wrote looks like an ad, not an article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate please on why theres is worthy and mine isn't? I included loads of links to show how it has been discussed in lots of different kinds of press as an example of web 2.0 in action. it was only a very short article, you have to explain what something is for someone to understand it, which i had to do to put in context with the web 2.0 comments. If E-Consultancy and Marketing Week have mentioned it, i don't see why you are not citing it as a credible and noteworth thing! Please give me as much detail as possible so i can produce a more constructive article. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelingeriefan (talkcontribs) 20:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Please try to focus on why it's important, not why it's good. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the fact that Marketing Week, Marie Claire and The Sun have all discussed it show how it is important? It's important because it offers a new way to shop online which has proved hugely popular and hence why it has got so much press so soon. Does this answer your question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelingeriefan (talkcontribs) 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to write a new neutral article about it. What I deleted was an ad, and ads don't belong on Wikipedia. This is my final answer, If you want other opinions, feel free to open a discussion at WP:DRV. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Overbrook Entertainment

Of course i want to appeal the article ! It is a credible company. tell pegasus that. thats the problem i have with wiki admins because they know too much about general stuff, but not the rest.

Ozzaroni (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you back me up against User: Pegasus, be a witness because he/she wants to tear down my article. Ever since I began till now. Saying the company is not credible. Thats BS.

Ozzaroni (talk) 06:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Please check your email. Gnangarra 15:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

5 Below

I'm new to creating an article on Wiki, but I'm a little disenchanted that without warning, you would delete a legit, if not satirical, article without notice. 5 Below existed, we also attended the same school as the Dixie Chicks. In fact the Barbara Trask, our 11th grade English teacher, was the mother or Emily and Marty. And, I just think it's incredibly rude to remove something without notice, because I took time to write it, and now I don't have it. It wasn't offensive, it wasn't rude, and it was real.

I just don't appreciate it. I understand taking things down that are blatantly offensive, but this was a true, humorous, bit of nostalgia, and as a donor to wikipedia, I don't appreciate it. Even if you won't repost the article, I would at least like to have it, because I know it is still archived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donatebeerhere32 (talkcontribs) 07:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

No one called it a hoax. What's so important about 5 Below? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)