Contents 1 Let's Start Fresh! 2 Notability of Abdel Kechiche 3 A. Whitney Brown 4 I'm back 5 Hey fellow co-oper! 6 Image copyright problem with Image:Bangkok Wat Pho Monk.jpg 7 Perro de Presa Canario 8 Re: Blackbird 9 Pull (band) 10 AfD nomination of Pull (band) 11 Thanks for Camden 28 12 Notability of Ciara Durkin 13 Jammu and Kashmir 14 Juan Sebastián Elcano (Spanish ship) 15 The Times Record (Brunswick) 16 Huma Abedin 17 "No free image" project 18 Speedy deletion of Jonathan Shockley 19 Speedy deletion of Travis Harmon 20 Speedy deletion of Travis and Jonathan 21 Speedy deletion of Red State Update 22 Regarding above material 23 Red State Update 24 Volapük 25 AfD nomination of ZEGG (band) 26 Reply 27 Rakan Ben Williams 28 Amazon linkspam 29 No free image images 30 "Keep it in my pants?" 31 March 2008 32 Chandigarh 33 wright 34 Image talk:Replace this image female.svg 35 Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand 36 AfD nomination of Remote Area Medical 37 Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion 38 A personal Communist attack? 39 Marijuana WAS legal in Alaska 40 Unsourced info in Barrington Hall 41 Global Fund for Women 42 Proposed deletion of Cookin' with Coolio 43 You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron 44 thanks! 45 AfD nomination of Mikalah Gordon 46 Copies of deleted articles 47 Re: Unusual articles 48 Question about edit 49 Political bias, POV 50 Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad! 51 Please make valid AfD comments 52 Articles for deletion (3rd nomination)‎ nomination of Amanda Marcotte 53 Seriously?

[edit] Let's Start Fresh!

Welcome back. R. Baley 01:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC) I have definite written proof in my possession to show that von Hagens has NOT invented the plastination process. It's an article by Oreste Nuzzi published on the scientic magazine Sapere by Urlico Hoepli Editions on the 29th of February 1952(when von Hagens would have been a mere 7 years old). The article describes the process as using sodium silicates and potassium among other chemicals and specifically mentions the use of resins. Please someone take notice as I think this would also invalidate his patents. brutaldeluxe 02:28 08/01/09 (gmt)Brutaldeluxe (talk) 02:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutaldeluxe (talk • contribs)

[edit] Notability of Abdel Kechiche

A tag has been placed on Abdel Kechiche, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Ozgod 23:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability tag removed; notability asserted. The article could use exanding; an image; and better sources, though. Rklawton 01:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A. Whitney Brown

While you are correct to reject unsourced or primary-source-only material about a living person, as WP:BLP requires, you might also want to take a bit gentler tack than calling the edits vandalism—I don't see any vandalism there, I more see newer editors who really do want to contribute and aren't aware of sourcing requirements and such. It appears the existence of the column itself is quite real; perhaps you could work with the other editors involved in looking for appropriate secondary sources on the controversy, rather than simply reverts as "vandalism"? I really don't think semi-protection is required right now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced information from articles - especially not without explanation. It tends to look a lot like vandalism. Rklawton 20:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Go away. --AStanhope 00:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Rather than link to the DKos diary itself, the source linked back to a partisan blog. I changed it to go to the original source, that is all. I think it's fair I have a chance for my work to be viewed in its original context when possible. I apologize for offending any editors, but I still believe the tone of my article was needlessly snide. I note that when other writers have won an Emmy they are called 'Emmy Award-winning". Compare this to the markedly different tone in the introduction to conservative satirist Dennis Miller and you will see what I mean. It may be vanity, but I have a right to be treated with ordinary respect, I believe. I do not expect people to take time out to defend me, but I should be allowed to keep people from dissing me. Respectfully, A. Whitney Brown Thank you. AWhitneyBrown 17:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm back

Hi, sorry long time no edit (on my part). I had some terribly big issues in real life which naturally limited my wiki-time. I think at this point I'll be able to spend a little more time editing. I did get to check out a few of the pics you linked to (thanks), and it looks like your family was having a good time. I am keeping an eye on your situation, and it looks like things have died down a good bit. If it pops up again I'll do what I can to help. But enough about that for now, because around here at least (if not in real life) it's usually better to let bygones be bygones. Take care, R. Baley 01:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey fellow co-oper!

You're the first person I've seen on here who also lived in the co-ops while at Cal. I lived in CZ my first year then in Stebbins up the street for the other 3. By that time Barrington was just a name and reputation. Go Bears! --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 23:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Bangkok Wat Pho Monk.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Bangkok Wat Pho Monk.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 02:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Perro de Presa Canario

Please see my comments regarding the problems with the section you wish to include in the article. That this breed is more aggressive than a poodle is encyclopedic. Your approach toward making this point, however, isn't appropriate. Included within this analysis is a recommendation regarding how to best accomplish your objective.

Appreciated. Sometimes revert wars are effective, too. --AStanhope 19:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally think the attack information should be in the article, I've tried to neutralize it a bit, may still need work, hopefully it will end up suiting all involved. cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 06:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, I added a comment to the Presa page re edit wars and would appreciate your comments about the situation so maybe we can work something out. Cheers - Mr Bungle | talk 12:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL. Rklawton 16:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

My family is back from overseas - just picked them up at the airport this morning. I can stop drinking now. Finally! --AStanhope 17:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Blackbird

Hi. They sent in an audition tape but due to confidentiality agreements I'd rather not have anything posted about them on here. Feel free to check out their music though! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ga gurl101 (talk • contribs) 04:18, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pull (band)

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Pull (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Oli Filth 00:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Pull (band)

Pull (band), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Pull (band) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Pull (band) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Oli Filth 08:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for Camden 28

Thanks for the great article! I'm glad it's started. Now I'll go see if there's anything left for me to do :-) -- ke4roh 23:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Ciara Durkin

A person that is famous for only one thing (eg, their death) is generally not regarded as notable (See WP:BLP1E). Wikipedia is sadly not a memorial. Is there any evidence that she recieved coverage outside of Massachusetts? shoy 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions none of that. You have sources-- great, add them; you'll prevent future editors from making the mistake I did. But please refrain from making borderline personal attacks in the future. shoy 17:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I asked you a question about it here. Would you rather I had slapped it with an AFD tag? And once again, please don't personally attack me. shoy 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how the timing of my comment indicated that the article was imminently going to be deleted (which I cannot do, since I am not an admin). I was merely informing you that in its state at that time, I had cause for concern about the notability of the subject. Since you apparently neither want nor need constructive criticism, may I suggest creating the article in your user space and then submitting it at WP:AFC? shoy 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jammu and Kashmir

The official language of this state is Urdu. Please do not put in Kashmiri till it becomes official as well. IP198 01:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Juan Sebastián Elcano (Spanish ship)

I'm not sure why you removed the {{unreferenced}} tag from this article. There are only internal WP links under /*see also*/. Toddstreat1 20:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Who cares? --AStanhope 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Times Record (Brunswick)

I moved the page back to its original name. The title isn't the place to define where the paper is located; ideally, the article would simply be called The Times Record, but there needed to be a "disambiguation" word in parentheses to distinguish it from another newspaper by that name (in Maryland, if I recall correctly). As there are not two papers called The Times Record in two cities called Brunswick, there's really no need to bring the state name into it. _{``` W</sub> i k i <sub>W</sub> i s t a h <sub>```} 04:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Huma Abedin

Take care not to remove reliably sourced, relevant information from an article - especially without discussing it in the article's talk page or even mentioning it in the edit summary. Rklawton (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not you again. I'm afraid that references to the "Lezident" aren't acceptable. I will revert any and all such references that appear in the Huma Abedin article. --AStanhope (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lezident references are not, but The Times is a reliable source and you are ignoring consensus in removing it. Can you discuss your position on the talkpage please? Skomorokh ^incite 02:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's me again. And if you check the article, you'll see that not only did I remove a Lezident.com reference, but I deleted the related article as well. You, on the other hand, removed the Times - a reliable source, so take heed. Rklawton (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that Huma Abedin is Hillary's Muslim-Lesbian lover? --AStanhope (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Our opinions on the matter are irrelevant - those of The Times are not. Skomorokh ^incite 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lame! --AStanhope (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe there is a dirty tricks campaign, and that's sufficiently sourced for the article at hand. Rklawton (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "No free image" project

There isn't one. The place holders do get us free images from new users and when new users click on the image there should be enough information in simple terms to decide if they can upload the image they want to upload or not. If you think the images are ugly design better ones. As for unprofessional I assume that IMDB's interface is produced by professional web designers there days and they use placeholders.Geni 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you you could go look on flikr rather than stright remove them. oh and see Category:Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders. I would appear that new users can navigate the system.Geni 01:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more professional if we just didn't have a picture?68.13.238.221 (talk) 04:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Jonathan Shockley

A tag has been placed on Jonathan Shockley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Travis Harmon

A tag has been placed on Travis Harmon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Travis and Jonathan

A tag has been placed on Travis and Jonathan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Red State Update

A tag has been placed on Red State Update requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jmlk17 08:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding above material

If you truly feel the above stuff is notable, I would suggest placing *all* related material into one overall article, which can effectively describe the people, the group, and the events surrounding their supposed notability. I still don't feel they are notable, but if you can find additional sources, it would make it much more likely for an article to survive and possibly flourish. If you have any questions, just let me know. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 08:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red State Update

Hi,

Regarding your request, the simple answer is "no." Speedy deletion is a "normal" deletion process here at Wikipedia: in this case, the article fell afoul of CSD A7, as it failed to assert a claim of notability. There was nothing in the article to suggest that the subject belonged in an encyclopedia. If you feel that there is something encyclopedically notable about this subject, you may try to rewrite an expanded article (you'll need a claim of notability, and better sources if you want it to survive), or you may take the question to deletion review. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You did ask politely, but your (implied) suggestion that the deletion was other than normal was incorrect. I appreciate your experience at Wikipedia, and so I'm sure you'll appreciate that deletion decisions are best made on the merit of the content, without reference to the contributor. Jimbo Wales himself would find an article on his pet turtle deleted, even if he wrote it lovingly.

On one point, it appears I was ill-informed. This subject has already been the topic of a deletion debate, closed as delete. My speedy deletion was thus valid as a CSD G4, the question of notability having been already discussed and decided by consensus at a community discussion. The article I deleted was actually shorter and of poorer quality than the one deleted at AfD. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean, unless you are referring to your own conduct. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Volapük

Hi AStanhope! I found your name via the m:Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, and thought you might care about this discussion: m:Proposals for closing projects/Radical cleanup of Volapük Wikipedia. In case you think that deleting stubs is not the best way to go for the Volapük Wikipedia, you could help us fight against this proposal with your vote. Thanks in advance! Smeira 17:09, 13 jan 2008

[edit] AfD nomination of ZEGG (band)

An editor has nominated ZEGG (band), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEGG (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

Even if someone cares enough to keep re-adding the page, it does not make it notable. Surely, you would know that. Undeath (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because one editor feels strong about his article does not mean that the article is wikipedia worthy. It is jut like the many, many people who make pages about themselves. Undeath (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rakan Ben Williams

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Rakan Ben Williams, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amazon linkspam

Yes, links to any particular bookseller (including book reviews on their sites) are automatically considered linkspam. Please provide a link to the ISBN for the book, and/or to independent reviews of the book. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No free image images

Please stop removing the "no free image" images from Wikipedia articles. If you do not feel the "no free image" images should be used at all, you can nominate the image for deletion, but removing images from articles where they are appropriate is considered vandalism. Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have strong feelings about the image, but removing the images is disruptive to the editors who use them to monitor articles. And vandalism can result in being blocked from making edits to Wikipedia. Wouldn't it be more constructive to nominate the image itself for deletion if it is truly unnecessary? Or replace it with a less "ugly" version? After all, Wikipedia is consensus-based. Queerudite (talk) 20:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly find them helpful, but I can appreciate your perspective, too. I do feel strongly though that removing them article by article is disruptive and unhelpful. They should either all be removed or all remain, and that decision shouldn't be made unilaterally. Queerudite (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they are a helpful reminder to less experienced editors that they can upload a free image if they have one. They also allow for the categorization of articles that lack images, which allows editors to more easily monitor those pages.

Are we in agreement though that the images themselves should either be all deleted or all retained by a consensus-driven decision making process? I'd like to undo the edits you made recently that removed the "no free image" images until the fundamental question of whether they should be used at all is resolved. Thanks. Queerudite (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The whole of Wikipedia is consensus based, see WP:Consensus. Queerudite (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Mike Smith (actor), you will be blocked from editing. I appreciate that you feel that Wikipedia would be improved by removing placeholder images, but there is a constructive/consensus-based way to do this and a disruptive/unilateral way to do it. Systematically blanking placeholder images, one at a time is a disruptive way. Please stop. Queerudite (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to Dafydd ab Hugh, you will be blocked from editing. Queerudite (talk) 23:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• You are still doing this despite the above warning? I've had a look through your contribs and you don't appear to be making any headway with this campaign so far. Do you need more outside opinions? MickMacNee (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Keep it in my pants?"

You may have a point about deletions, but please: keep to a higher level of discourse? --Orange Mike | Talk 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] March 2008

With regard to your comments on User talk:Seicer: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. seicer | talk | contribs 01:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chandigarh

Hi, this is about your comment regarding notable residents in "Chandigarh", I could not agree more. Is there a way to stop the advertising? Anthony.Gonsalves (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Nepalese royal massacre. Thank you. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] wright

As you no doubt noticed before you removed sourced content on the above page, we are working on building a consensus. Your edit was disruptive to that process. Please se the talk page for relevant discussion--Die4Dixie (talk) 04:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image talk:Replace this image female.svg

Please see my comments/questions. Regards. --Kleinzach (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

also see this proposal. Best --Kleinzach (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Thailand

Hi there!!! You are welcome to join the new WikiProject Thailand, please sign in. We need as many editors from Thailand as possible!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 10:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Remote Area Medical

An article that you have been involved in editing, Remote Area Medical, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Area Medical. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Orange Mike | Talk 19:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion.

[edit] A personal Communist attack?

I arrived here on your discussion page by accident after looking for users who had nearly the same IP as mine. (You reported User:71.100.1.7 for violating 3RR).

I read some of your user page and was impressed by the number of articles you had started, finding your talk page to be chocked full notices for deletion.

Recently one of the only article I started was nominated for deletion as a personal attack made in response to another article I had written in the Wikia. The Wikia article uses logic to define, support and defend the existance of God.

The nomination for deletion was claimed to be for the reason of original research and not being notable which it was neither.

Consequently I learned that the user who had nominated it for deletion was born in Beijing in 1988 where he was raised as an atheist, indoctrinated as a Communist, shipped off at age 12 to Atlanta, entered the public school system for three years, move up to Georgia tech for four more years and is now a graduate student in robotics and preparing for a career at JPL where he is this week.

If you are not an atheist then you might wonder how such a thing could occur within the United States. If you are then it would be pointless to continue.

Since th user is Chinese, however, I was hoping you might be ables to give me some insight since one thing about him that I have noticed is his tendency to ignore fact. For instance, he did not read the primary reference for the article and it appears that neither did any member of his cabal who likewise voted for deletion.

Throughout his commentary elsewhere there is great evidence of knowledge he lacks, such as religion, but I am curious about much more than that. He must have an agenda and I would like to know what it is. All of the robotics people at JPL, Carnegie-Melon and Georgia Tech appear to be connected in one way or another with the old Soviet Block or current Asian countries with Communist ties.

Any insight would be welcome and appreciated. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.126 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marijuana WAS legal in Alaska

Actually it was legal for a brief period. Don't assume its untrue just because you never heard it before. ThaddeusB (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A simple Google search returns numerous results: [1] See also numerous current news stories relating to Palin, all stating it was legal at the time: [2] --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced info in Barrington Hall

Please don't add unsourced info to the article, this has been discussed many times, and wikipedia simply doesn't allow the inclusion of unsourced info or original research. If you find sources supporting the deleted info, please add it back WITH the source - if you can't find a source, it can't be included in the article. Also, let me note that a reference has to actually support the information in the article, adding just any link to an article about a person isn't good enough. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 19:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Global Fund for Women

Hi Adam! I'm helping the Global Fund for Women think about how to use technologies like Wikis effectively. In preparation, I thought I'd check out what the world is saying about the organization, and I noticed that you started the Wikipedia page in 2006. Can you tell me what inspired you to start the page? I think the context would really help folks there understand what all this actually is and what it means. :-) Many thanks! Eekim (talk) 02:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Cookin' with Coolio

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Cookin' with Coolio, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Karppinen (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

I notice that you are part of Category:Inclusionist_Wikipedians. I would like you to consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles for deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia.

Ikip (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] thanks!

Thanks for the message! By the way I'm talking at Berkman Center at Harvard on Wed March 25, so if you're in the area do stop by! [3] Or if you know other folks, let them know. -- Fuzheado | Talk 22:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Mikalah Gordon

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mikalah Gordon. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikalah Gordon. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Copies of deleted articles

Hi, as far as I know, the best way of getting a copy of a deleted article is to contact the deleting administrator; check the log for the article. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Unusual articles

Hey. What I deleted was only a redirect. You're looking for Wikipedia:Unusual articles, which still exists. Wizardman 15:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Question about edit

What did you mean by this edit? At first I thought it was some sort of hoax, but maybe I misunderstood. Jehochman ^Talk 00:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Political bias, POV

A quick look at your "contribs" here on the Wikipedia reveals in an instant that your Wikipedia account exists solely to make edits that are biased politically. These acts by their very nature are POV and run counter to the rules by which the Wikipedia is run.

If your interest is to politicize the Wikipedia to push certain points of view, I suggest you find something else to do. --AStanhope (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, not all of my edits have even been to politically related articles, secondly, all I have done to the Van Jones is remove left-wing bias. I have not added any biased content to Wikipedia, but notwithstanding your whole argument is hypocritical as your own edits, and comments on discussion pages have revealed your own political biases. --Tdl1060 (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to the Article Rescue Squad!

Here to help articles tagged for rescue! Articles tagged for deletion and rescue [−] Articles tagged for deletion and rescue (25 P)  2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii  Aar Maanta  Sarah Austin  Bad Reputation (film)  Comparison between Roman and Han Empires  Denizen (2010 film)  Ejabberd  Fast Track: No Limits  Fei Comodo  Flippa  Gajim  Andrej Grubacic  Armando Gutierrez  The Irish Filmography  Jim Lawlor  Tana Louise  Mike Schatz  Molecular processors  Daniela Nardi  Parkour in popular culture  Pocket Devil  Political uprisings of 1968  SUPERMODELME.tv  Shaycarl  The London Eye in popular culture Hi, Astanhope, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! Some points that may be helpful: Our main aim is to help improve articles, so if someone seeks help, please try to assist if you are able. Likewise feel free to ask for help, advice and clarification. Many times we are asked to help rescue articles by people new to our notability and sourcing policies. If the article is not fixable we can help explain why and offer alternatives. Many of these editors are also new to Wikipedia so may see deleting "their" article as "bitey". Encourage civility and maybe even {{welcome}} them if they have only been templated with deletion messages. The Articles for deletion (AfD) discussion is where the concerns regarding each article are brought up and addressed. To be an effective member of the project you need to know how AfD works as well as how to improve articles. Introduction to deletion process gives a good overview and some good advice for newcomers to deletion. Our primary work is improving articles tagged for rescue. On this template you can see a drop-down list of current articles tagged. You can install it on your own page by putting {{ARS/Tagged}}. A more dynamic list with article links and description is on our current articles page. It is highly recommended you watchlist it. If you have another language besides English, please consider adding yourself to the list of translators available. Articles and sources that use non-English languages often need translation for those of us who cannot translate for ourselves. Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is recommended that you watchlist it. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! -- Banjeboi 10:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Please make valid AfD comments

!votes like "keep - Well written, comprehensive reference" when the article has no referencing whatsoever and no chance at passing WP:GNG are invalid, as are things like "The youth angle makes this article more interesting than it would be otherwise". This isn't a disagreement based on positions, your votes are unsound and not at all valid. Please try and explain how the articles pass our inclusion guidelines, since current votes come close to WP:ILIKEIT. Ironholds (talk) 03:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No need for snarky comments like that; I would've commented even if you'd voted delete. "the youth angle makes this article interesting, keep" - how does that explain how the article passes WP:GNG, which is the basic problem here? I've got no problem with users who believe that articles should be kept and will try in as many ways within the constraints of guideline and policy to keep them, but "I like it therefore I must vote to keep it even though the vote is nonsensical" is, well, nonsensical. Ironholds (talk) 13:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article, actually - I've read it before. Note the way he does it, or did it, though. "I found press citations and argued for keeping the Jitterbug telephone, a large-keyed cell phone with a soft earpiece for elder callers; and Vladimir Narbut, a minor Russian Acmeist poet whose second book, Halleluia, was confiscated by the police; and Sara Mednick, a San Diego neuroscientist and author of Take a Nap! Change Your Life; and Pyro Boy, a minor celebrity who turns himself into a human firecracker on stage". He finds (found?) additional sources and used them as a keep rationale. If he'd voted essentially WP:ITSUSEFUL as I've seen you done on occasion then his vote would have the same weight as it did when he said "what harm can it do". Ironholds (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your statement at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent Lutheran Diocese that it's "Nice to have as a reference if they appear in the news for any reason" is not an argument that many Wikipedians will recognise as valid or according to policy. We don't have articles on people, organisations or other topics just on the off-chance that they might appear in the news someday. Please read WP:NOTABILITY to see how your view goes against consensus. Fences&Windows 22:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• "nothing that requires the voter to comment beyond their vote to KEEP or DELETE." - actually, there is. AfD is a discussion, not a vote - in theory, it's down to the strength of arguments, not to numbers. Not all AfD comments are valid, either - see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, for example. We're not prepared to accept the !votes and comments of other users; they can be discussed, their legitimacy disputed and counter-arguments put forward. It isn't a personal standard of "valid" I'm enforcing here, it's the WP standard of what constitutes an argument at AfD. WP:ILIKEIT or WP:ITSUSEFUL are widely considered to be poor arguments unlikely to be taken into account by the closing admin, particularly when the comments you've made don't reference guidelines or policy in any way, or explain how to get round the minor stumbling blocks of the article failing WP:GNG completely. Comments like "The youth angle makes this article more interesting" are invalid and irrelevant in that they don't deal with the problem of the article. When I see delete votes, I expect to say delete votes which say either "delete per (insert guideline/policy/whatever), based on (this research I have done which shows the article fails whatever guideline/policy)" or at least "per this above user who has provided a full, policy/guideline based argument", and the same applies for keep votes. When I see a keep vote that completely ignores the lack of any third-party sources, I think it's a good idea to query it, regardless of how rude and snide the response is. And FYI, I would have been nicer to a newbie, because they aren't as experienced or knowledgeable as an experienced editor. As an experienced editor, however, you should know that these sorts of comments are invalid, as are offensive responses to a generally reasonable initial message. Ironholds (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion (3rd nomination)‎ nomination of Amanda Marcotte

I have nominated Amanda Marcotte, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Marcotte (3rd nomination)‎ . Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Alison ^❤ 05:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously?

This [4] bit of editing is probably not the world's greatest idea. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)