User talk:Stifle/Archive 0708d

Re: Deletion review for Chicago Engineering Design Team

Sorry I didn't respond sooner. I thought the deletion was final so thought that our article was just "done with". I have posted some comments on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chicago_Engineering_Design_Team though. Thank you, Engineer4life (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:SMALL SIZE.jpg

Hello! Thanks for pointing out my mistake. I however, need more help. This image is a Logo of an Augustinian school; I'm pretty sure it has not been release into the public domain by the Augustinians. The original uploader may had been having some difficulty with copyright tags and simply opted to upload the image under GFDL. It's now orphaned too. Should I list it for IfD? Thanks! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 10:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct action in this case (where the image is released under a license that does not seem plausible) is to tag the image {{PUI}}. I have done so for this image. Stifle (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 11:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

PUI bot

I'll hack something up when I get the chance. BJ^Talk 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Heliodoruspillar.gif

Please compare the img with the img here [1], they are the same - including dimensions. The Inscription is old but the digital creation of the text is perhaps taken from the copyrighted site.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A faithful reproduction of a public domain resource does not gain a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, what is your intention regarding the protection of this page please? MSGJ (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to protect it but it seems I failed. Protected now. Thanks for the message. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Step by step

From WP:RFPP:

Move protection. I keep disambiguating this page because of this reasoning, but another user keeps moving it back to Step by Step (song) while giving weak reasoning. I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined Requesting protection to get the upper hand in an edit war is poor form. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... you might want to look at that again. The requester was in favor of moving the article to Step by Step (New Kids on the Block song). At the time the request was made, the article was at Step by Step (song) (and had been that way for awhile). Further, he specifically said I didn't disambiguate it again because I don't want to be accused of being involved in an edit war. And, yet, well, I hope I don't need to spell it out for you... -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Updated the reply over there. Stifle (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Cityflag.jpg

Hi Stifle. Could I trouble you to undelete Image:Cityflag.jpg? I believe a solid fair use case can be made for its use in the Rochester, New York article, as flags are commonly used for identification of government entities -- in fact, the same purpose served by the seal that's still there (the two together provide even more complete identification). Thanks in advance. Powers ^T 15:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, you will need to add the required fair use details to that page. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The image

In your edit here you have suggested a source. I have provided one that was used as a base. Do you think I need to provide any further details on it please? Wikidās 20:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

That is fine. I have edited the page to make it explicit that that is the source. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that what extra hit of ~ does:-) Wikidās ॐ 17:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eamonn McCann

Your warning was completely unnecessary. I was reverting vandalism, which I reported yesterday, but the admin who checked it saw fit only to warn the offending editor after a final warning had been issued. If 3RR applies to protecting WP from vandalism then we're in some trouble.Traditional unionist (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The three-revert rule applies to all reverts, except for a very limited number of exclusions. One of them is simple vandalism, which is one or more edits that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. (Examples: page-blanking, adding swearwords, etc.) This is not simple vandalism, and may not be vandalism at all. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alas, it is simple vandalism. You should not fall into the trap of believing that because it's northern ireland it must be a shade of Gray. Eamonn McCann was born in Northern Ireland, not Ireland. That is backed up by WP:MOS and WP:IMOS. The vandal was warned three times, then reported, then inexplicably warned AGAIN. The next day he was up to his tricks again. I was fully justified in reverting this vandalism. It was NOT a content disputeTraditional unionist (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm Irish, and I know the difference. I can see it is vandalism, an average American could not. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you know that this instance was simple vandalism and warning me for 3RR was inappropriate.Traditional unionist (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I know that it was not simple vandalism, as simple vandalism is vandalism that any person who had just looked at the page would know immediately to be vandalism. I don't think that I'm going to be able to explain it any more clearly, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This was persistent, simple vandalism. The user in question was deliberately and knowingly vandalising wikipeida. Engaging in disucssion with a user who has been told three times is somewhat pointless.Traditional unionist (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

1997 Fiesta Bowl

Okay, now I'm just confused. I know my first edit was almost exactly cut and paste. My second edit was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Did you even look at my second edit before you deleted it? Bcspro (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Look at this diff [2] Bcspro (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I can't follow what you're asking me. 1997 Fiesta Bowl has never been deleted and I have not edited it. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about 1997 Fiesta Bowl (December) which says you deleted it twice

23:19, 18 July 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "1997 Fiesta Bowl (December)" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement)

14:49, 11 July 2008 Stifle (Talk | contribs) deleted "1997 Fiesta Bowl (December)" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement)

I think the second time it should have been left alone. Bcspro (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. Please hold on while I check this out. Stifle (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have restored the non-infringing versions. Thank you for your patience. In future please consider being more civil. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. However, I still do not see why the article was deleted a third time. Bcspro (talk) 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I screwed that up. It should be all right now. Stifle (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your message

>Please do not upload copyrighted images and claim they are your own work. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You left the message above on my talkpage a month ago. I do not understand what you are talking about. When did I upload copyrited images and claim they were my own work?--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The message related to the following images, now deleted:

1. Image:Azzuritomb.JPG
2. Image:Totti red.jpg

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 10:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you're talking about such old things now. I don't even remember when I uploaded those photos. Maybe two and a half years ago? Those photos were deleted two years ago and I have not uploaded any photos since then. There's no need for you to warn me not to upload copyrighted ones. If you want to warn me, go back to 2 and a half years ago by time machine. Did I claim they were my own work? Sorry but I don't remember. And what are you thinking you are? It sounds as if you were a police officer of wikipedia or something.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the fact that they were uploaded so far back. Never mind. Stifle (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your message

Your message on my talk page here was about image I did not create or upload. Thanks anyway! Wikidās ॐ 11:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I was letting you know because I restored it at your request recently. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone with a similar name? Wikidās ॐ 16:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Silent removal of Image:Win32-loader.ogg

Hi,

I see that Image:Win32-loader.ogg has been removed, allegedly because it has been "Listed on PUI for over two weeks".

However, I didn't receive any notification that the freeness of this content was being challenged (since 3rd step in Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_images about notifiing was apparently ommitted). I tried to find it in the PUI listing, but I can't find any reference to my video.

Therefore I must conclude that the claim was spurious, and re-upload. If you want to discuss any possible problems I'll be glad to; but I obviously can't deal with claims if they aren't notified to me.

Thanks

Robertmh (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Win32-loader.ogg was deleted because User:ViperSnake151 tagged it as possibly unfree and the problem was not addressed within two weeks. The reason given was "Possible copyvio - depicts non-free software". The image was tagged with the {{GFDL}} tag, which is certainly not valid. {{GPL}} might be. I can't say why he didn't contact you, as he was supposed to.

You need to place a license tag on that image, as {{free screenshot}} is not sufficient on its own. {{free screenshot|template=GPL}} should do it, but you need to crop out all parts of the image showing Windows or content supplied with Windows, as that is copyrighted.

Finally, I notice that you clicked the "other" option in my message wizard. If you had clicked the correct option, "a page has been deleted", you would have arrived at this page which would have helped you more quickly. Stifle (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Tasoskessaris#User block notice

The user is asking for a review of the block. while I agree the block is justified per 3RR, the IP had already crossed the threshold of edit warring more than 3 times to insert that name before Tasoskessaris, even if it wasn't quite within a 24 hour period. Have a look at my comments there and let me know what you think. –xeno (talk) 15:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While he undoubtedly violated 3RR, and admins are supposed to treat all sides equally in a block dispute, I suppose that the block has served its purpose and will reduce to time served. Stifle (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No doubt. Thanks for looking into this. –xeno (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection of UEFA Cup 2008-09

I hope you don't mind, but per my comments here I'd like to ask you to remove the protection on that page. I don't mean to blame Hockey-holic, I have nothing against him or his motives, but I think his actions in requesting protection were very disruptive and completely in ignorance of the fact that we were working towards a solution already - one which he had taken virtually no part in. Of course I will respect your opinion on this over mine, but I personally believe he requested protection for all the wrong reasons, and in ignorance of the work we had so far achieved. Falastur2 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I've replied at that talk page. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RRN decision

[3] - I think a block might be okay. Would you reconsider? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded at WP:AN3. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: NEW ARTICALE

Dear Sir,

As it shows you have put a protection on a articale that i made. your comment was "doesn't indicate real person. well it does as i have the offical website address and if you had a moment to read then you would of seen this spectacular person.

you have deleted that artical for no reason, which puts wikipedia down and i will take this further if you do not give a good explination of why it is not allowed.

i suggest you email me or contact me back within 2 days or i will have no other oppertunity than to write to wikipeida its self explaining the difficulty as a user i am having.

Many Thanks, Mr Parmar

The Page you deleted was :Jamie Parmar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieparmar1 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

Jamie Parmar was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a person which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:BIO for details of what might show notability. If you think that these criteria are met, please explain which one and provide citations from reliable sources to back up your claim, and I will consider undeleting it.

You may alternatively file a deletion review request.

Threatening people and condescending comments won't help you get anywhere on Wikipedia and I would suggest you be more civil in future. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Following the last message,

i am sorry to be threatning i just was angrey as it took me a while to make it and all of a sudden it was deleted.

the reason i dont think it was meet because it does indicate the importance of the subject as it shows the meaning in the first sentence as a Teenage Adventurer. this is then backed up from a link of Jamies official website.

Please Reply,

Mr Parmar Jamieparmar1 (talk) 19:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately Jamie's official website is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Has there been anything written about him in independent third-party sources, like mainstream newspapers or news websites? Stifle (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is currently In Goole Times, and also has just been given £4000 for the travel journey for the event from a company from the sewell group in hull and also Miles Hilton-Barber is a close friend and will support him all the way.

Jamie Parmar is being supported as well from the Yorkshire Air Ambulance as that is whom he is sponsoring. Is that a good enough explination for the deletion to be cancelled and for him to be on wiki?

Many Thanks

Mr Parmar J Parmar 19:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Parmar - I agree with Stifle in that the subject of your article (presumably, you) doesn't even come close to meeting notability requirements set forth in WP:BIO. I'm afraid that there will not be an article on this subject in Wikipedia. In addition, you do not have to start a new section on Stifle's talk page every time you wish to argue your case - as we are doing, you can make a comment directly below ours.Tan ǀ 39 19:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide a web URL where I can read that story? I have not heard of any newspaper called Goole Times.

When replying, please put your reply at the end of the section that the rest of the conversation is in. You can do this by clicking the Edit link at the top right hand corner of that section. This helps keep the conversation together. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

marcus goldhaber deleted.....why?

Hi Stifle,

I'm one of Marcus Goldhaber's publicists and he asked me to create a wiki on him.

Although he is not of the stature of Michael Buble or what not, I really don't understand why his page was deleted.

He is a signed artist, and his first album was reviewed by People magazine (among other noted publications).

None of the content is a violation of copyrights because it was written by myself and another publicist.

Please provide an explanation for the deletion of his page....

If you find it too PR-y, I will most certainly make edits. But otherwise, I think he deserves a wiki page.

thank you. Termeh (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)termeh

I will restore the page but you will need to make it a bit less promotional. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot less. Massive WP:COI issues here, obviously. I'm skeptical ;-) Tan ǀ 39 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

hi again,

i did not intend on the page coming off as promotional. i made it factual. but obviously, you disagree. can you please be specific on what i should remove from the page, or edit?

thank you

Termeh (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)termeh

You would, at least, need to remove puffery like "has received noteworthy praise", "inspired by his upbringing", "foster his flair", "unique story-telling approach", etc. I would strongly suggest you look at an established article in the Category:Jazz musicians and try and bring it to a similar style.

I am sorry, but I can't help you to improve the article you wrote. If you need further help, please try asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz, Wikipedia:Help desk, or Wikipedia:Requests for assistance. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I made the edits to Marcus's page. I hope you will approve them.

With regards to the 'puffery' you mentioned, you may want to also warn the following pages who used the same 'puffery' style phrases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Canter - inspired by his upbringing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_petit_Nicolas - unique story telling style...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictures_for_sad_children - unique story telling style...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_Browne- flair for composition rarely seen ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Termeh (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

Neither I nor anyone else is responsible for approving edits on Wikipedia.

If you feel another article needs to be changed, feel free to edit it. Stifle (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

UEFA Cup 2008-09

Hi Stifle,

I think you should revert the last edit before you protected the article. If no consensus is reached then I think the 2nd last edit would stand as what it should be. Kingjeff (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Even admins shouldn't edit protected pages other than to fix typos or remove libel etc. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. But I'm not asking you to just make any edit. It should be to what version you think it should be at. Kingjeff (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not my job. It would be against the protection policy for me to revert and then protect, or to protect and then revert. If you feel the page should be at another version, just come to a consensus on the talk page and request unprotection. Stifle (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Druze

I am asking you directly because you replied to the request for unblock on Druze. The users who were participating in an edit war on that page (and many others) have been banned for sockpuppetry. I'm not sure how to get consensus, as no one else other than myself remains to discuss the issue. In regards to the particular conflict - "Hakim's alleged divinity" - you can see the compromise version I posted on Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah even after the user GreenEcho had been banned. I still included his views. Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 20:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Commented at Talk:Druze. Stifle (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance with this issue, I appreciate your hard work as an editor. :-) Naahid بنت الغلان ^{Click to talk} 21:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ZipLocal

Could you please restore ZipLocal? I was careful to include references with the article. With the story from the Montreal Gazette, you have to scroll down towards the end of the article to see the reference to ZipLocal, but it's there. --Eastmain (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain which of the criteria at WP:WEB that you say this site meets. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMPANY, actually, and the general notability guideline, since it's a company traded on the TSX Venture Exchange. See the sources at Google News , and for the company's previous name RedCity as well as the coverage relating to predecessor company Tamec Inc., which pled guilty for misleading telemarketing [4] [ [5] --Eastmain (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's enough there to convince me to restore it. However I think most of the coverage is trivial, and bearing in mind that the TSX Venture Exchange is a venture capital market for emerging companies, I am listing it at AFD.

It would be a good idea to make the article more neutral — the article as it stands is negatively weighted — and to add in some of those sources you showed me. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Pabopa

Manac did not properly present the 3RR violation by Pabopa, so I reformatted it (I also suspect Pabopa is evading his or her block sanction today). Please take a look at the case again. Thanks--Caspian blue (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Stifle. I find it reasonable that User:Pabopa is a reincarnation of 210.231.12.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account which was edit warring on Taekwondo until he was blocked 48 hours for disruptive editing. After the IP was blocked at 18:26 on July 25, Pabopa created his account and continued warring on the same material. Since Pabopa has made three reverts on each of three different articles within 24 hours, and the total of the reverts is greater if the IP is included, I think he is inviting a block. Then if he *is* really the IP, that is block evasion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The offence is stale at this point (the purpose of a 3RR block is to prevent further edit warring, and Pabopa isn't editing there any more. However, a few other people are still edit warring so I've protected Taekwondo. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Stifle. i appreciate your effort. Pabopa created new accounts. Webcamera [6]. exactly same behaviot of Pabopa[7]

210.231.12.98[8] and 210.231.14.222[9]. this two similar IP range IPs are exactly same behavior of Pabopa[10], too. He make a disruptive edit war by multiple IPs and Accounts.Manacpowers (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Please report 3RR violations at WP:AN3, vandalism at WP:AIV, and disruptive incidents at WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 10:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Stifle, thanks for the reply, and I see the logic of your finding. It is indeed possible that Pabopa will not return. As additional background on Pabopa-like editing, you might be interested in an ANI posting cited by Caspian blue. I have learned that there may be an organized meatpuppet campaign over at a Japanese web forum called 2channel. They do anti-Korean editing. They may be trying to systematically game 3RR, take advantage of the date of expiry of checkuser logs, etc. Just in case you happen to see a pattern in future where one user (like Pabopa) reverts several articles exactly three times each in 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Alex Albrecht-5279.jpg

Regarding the image, the uploader claims that the video is the only permission required for Wikipedia to use the images. Gary King (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't provide permission. Stifle (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I CSDed the image – because the uploader made it clear that there was no explicit permission to use the image. Gary King (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between having no explicit permission and obvious copyvios, like images from Getty, or photos pulled from main news websites. The former should be sent to WP:PUI, the latter should be deleted.

Sorry for the confusion that my last reply would have caused. I had, for some reason, confused you with the uploader. Stifle (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Taekwondo

Hi, I'm an editor who's been participating in some of the discussions at the Taekwondo page. As I'm sure you saw when you protected it, the page has seen quite a lot of disruption and argument in recent months, with no sign yet of any resolution. Yesterday I opened an incident at the Administrators' Noticeboard describing what I feel are the issues and asking for guidance, which User:Xenocidic marked as requiring attention from someone familiar with the matter. I don't know how closely you follow the page yourself (if at all), but I just wanted to let you know about the report and see if you'd be interested in offering comment or feedback. Thank you! Huwmanbeing ☀★ 19:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Replied at WP:ANI. Stifle (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

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

Blockdot Deletion

Please restore the deleted article for Blockdot. This article was already reviewed by one of the Wikipedia 'reviewers' and she highlighted the areas that she considered 'advertising'. We addressed those areas and believe that this deletion is not justified. Please let us know what you find 'offensive' so we can address. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcopollo (talk • contribs) 12:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

Blockdot was deleted under criterion G11 of our criteria for speedy deletion, as it was an article in the form of an advertizement. I would recommend that you take under consideration the recommendation of User:IronGargoyle at the deletion review, that is to create a user subpage to redraft the article from a neutral point of view. You should also consider whether

I do not consider any part of the article offensive, merely that it was, or appeared to have been, created solely to advertize a product. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and spam is taken negatively. Perhaps the business FAQ may answer some more of your questions for the time being. However, the deletion review has endorsed the deletion of the article as it stands, and there is no appeal possible from that decision. You are not prohibited from recreating the article, but you should seriously consider what I recommended above.

Finally, I notice you referred to "we" in your message. Please remember that role accounts (that is, accounts shared by multiple people) are not permitted on Wikipedia.

I hope you stay at Wikipedia and enjoy it here. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"enough albums to avoid A7"

Your edit note, in removing a {{db-a7}} template was "decline speedy, there are enough albums released to avoid an A7". A7 is not about notability. A7 is about stating the importance of an article in its lead, which is something that isn't done in the Aborted article. The number of albums would help establish notability if notability were the reason for an AfD, but that isn't the case. —  X  S  G  21:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You said "A7 is not about notability. A7 is about stating the importance of an article in its lead". That is not currently how CSD:A7 reads. An article is eligible for deletion under A7 only if it does not anywhere assert the notability or importance of the subject. Saying that a band has released ten albums usually does assert notability. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)