User talk:Coredesat/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Semi-Protect

Hi Coredesat- I know this isn't where you are supposed to ask for semi-protection but I can't remember where and you protected a page for me recently (CSHS). I need you to semi-protect Global Aero Logistics because an anon. user is constantly reverting the correct information I am editing. He has repeated to do this even though I have warned him on his talk page. Thanks for your help! Sox23 16:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks again for your help. I think he's finally simmered down. Sox23 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How can I get my article back ?

I was new for creating a Wiki article. I am a Professor of Statistics, and made the first wiki article named Vagyoga, which is now deleted as per Wikipedia policy. Sir, please let me know how I can get back my article which I made on wiki named Vagyoga. Regards --Vagyoga 05:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter

I was advised that, since I had properly sourced the article, thus meeting the original demands in the AfD, I could recreate it, since it wasn't subject to speedy deletion. Since WP:BOLD is integral to this encyclopaedia, and since it would be quicker than waiting for the review (which appears confused over which deleted article was being debated) I saw no problem with doing so. Michael Sanders 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And why have you deleted it? It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Michael Sanders 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a synthesis of primary sources. First of all, primary sources in this case are Rowling's original writing, not the novels based on that writing. Second, it is questionable whether rules on primary/secondary sources apply to novels. Thirdly, such complaints were not included in the original AfD, and therefore, are not appropriate for Speedy Deletion criteria. Fourthly, the article makes use of secondary sources - e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, which is recognised as a reputable source by Rowling. Fifthly, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." So, I want you to justify your actions. Michael Sanders 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And you were out-of-line speedily deleting it when it did not fit the criteria. And, for the record, the data from the primary sources is referred to by the secondary sources also referenced in the article. And I would like you to demonstrate to me that articles on novels cannot use the novels themselves as references. There are no such rules or conventions. Michael Sanders 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Donkey Punch deletion question: Keeping versus speedy keeping

As a matter of academic curiosity, why was the decision on that article's deletion one of keeping rather than speedy keeping? Clearly, the ultimate effect is the same, but still, I genuinely wonder. Is it a matter of procedure (say, some sort of administrator wasn't forthcoming) or did it actually fail to meet the requirements for a speedy keep. Feel free to answer at your leisure, but I'd be gratified to know the policy nuances. Thanks! Pop Secret 10:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in Harry Potter

I was advised that, since I had properly sourced the article, thus meeting the original demands in the AfD, I could recreate it, since it wasn't subject to speedy deletion. Since WP:BOLD is integral to this encyclopaedia, and since it would be quicker than waiting for the review (which appears confused over which deleted article was being debated) I saw no problem with doing so. Michael Sanders 19:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And why have you deleted it? It does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Michael Sanders 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not a synthesis of primary sources. First of all, primary sources in this case are Rowling's original writing, not the novels based on that writing. Second, it is questionable whether rules on primary/secondary sources apply to novels. Thirdly, such complaints were not included in the original AfD, and therefore, are not appropriate for Speedy Deletion criteria. Fourthly, the article makes use of secondary sources - e.g. Harry Potter Lexicon, which is recognised as a reputable source by Rowling. Fifthly, according to Wikipedia:Attribution#What is not original research?: "Editors may make straightforward mathematical calculations or logical deductions based on fully attributed data that neither change the significance of the data nor require additional assumptions beyond what is in the source." So, I want you to justify your actions. Michael Sanders 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

And you were out-of-line speedily deleting it when it did not fit the criteria. And, for the record, the data from the primary sources is referred to by the secondary sources also referenced in the article. And I would like you to demonstrate to me that articles on novels cannot use the novels themselves as references. There are no such rules or conventions. Michael Sanders 20:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Donkey Punch deletion question: Keeping versus speedy keeping

As a matter of academic curiosity, why was the decision on that article's deletion one of keeping rather than speedy keeping? Clearly, the ultimate effect is the same, but still, I genuinely wonder. Is it a matter of procedure (say, some sort of administrator wasn't forthcoming) or did it actually fail to meet the requirements for a speedy keep. Feel free to answer at your leisure, but I'd be gratified to know the policy nuances. Thanks! Pop Secret 10:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		For your wise words in a way overheated AfD. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates in HP

Hello. I notice that you have commented on the undeletion debate in regard to this article arguing it is original research, being a synthesis of primary source material, albeit not advancing an argument. However a couple of people have pointed out WP:NOR, where it states Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. I think this is a rather old established part of the policy from its inception, reflecting the fact that it is essentially impossible to create an encyclopedia without doing research which organises the information in existing sources. Anyway, perhaps you might wish to reconsider your argument? Sandpiper 11:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Questions on your close of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/English_language_names_for_Chinese_people

• Which arguments for deletion were "strong[]" in your view?
• What policy(ies) did the article violate?
• Is "divisive fork" a criterion for deletion?
• With this article gone, are the discussions at Chink and Chinaman going to be less "divisive"?
• Which comment(s) of Uncle G were un"civil"?

Thanks, Pan Dan 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the super-quick response to my first four questions (you didn't really answer the fifth). From WP:POVFORK it is clear to me that (1) a "divisive fork" (whatever that means) is not a POV fork, and (2) the article ("divisive" or not) was not a POV fork. Not taking this to DRV yet, but I'll certainly let you know if I do. I must commend you though for at least providing a rationale in your close. Pan Dan 13:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

IRC

Its banned me for filtering problems. Any chance you could overturn it?Mitchazenia 21:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Whats K-Lined mean?Mitchazenia 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

{{afd}} -- Religious conversion and terrorism

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism — I saw you were the closing administrator.

Did you read the discussion closely enough to notice my concern over the nominator's editing of the article, after his nomination? I'd like to ask your opinion of my concern.

I suppose it is possible that the nominator was not aware that, after first criticizing the article for being poorly referenced, by then deleting the references other contributors added, he could be leaving the impression that he was prepared to vandalize the article to ensure it was deleted.

I saw that you used POV as one of the justifications for your deletion decision. This confuses me. WP:DEL used to have a very useful table, that listed common concerns, and the action the wikipedian who had the concern should take. WP:DEL used to make very clear that a perceived POV was not grounds for deletion.

Can you explain your use of POV as a justification to me? Has there been a policy change?

I didn't realize the deletion was so imminent. I was drafting a note to the closing admin that was going to ask them, whoever they were, if they thought they had the authority to relist the article, and tell the nominator to refrain from the questionable edits, allowing those expressing an opinion to do so on a version of the article that was not having the references continually stripped from it by the nominator.

I am thinking of asking for a deletion review. While the participants in the discusssion had, overwhelming, backed deletion, I think they had generally opted for deletion based on a lack of references, placing trust that the nominator wasn't removing perfectly valid sources, without a meaningful attempt at discussiion first, which gave the unfortunate, and inaccurate appearance that the article was unreferenced.

It is not that I feel that strongly about the article. I didn't come across it until a day or two ago. But I feel very, very strongly about people who subvert the deletion process. -- Geo Swan 06:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for addressing whether POV is, or isn't grounds for deletion. I am sorry though, you said that there was no policy that said POV was not grounds for deletion. I supplied you with a link to an earlier version of WP:DEL that said:

Problems that don't require deletion

Problem with page	Solution	Add this tag
Article is biased or has lots of POV	List on Wikipedia:Pages needing attention.	{{npov}} or {{POV check}}

I think you are mistaken, POV was not grounds for deletion. So, unless you are aware of a policy change...

I know articles that have faced a persistent battle with POV can be nominated for deletion on those grounds. I have never seen an example of that. The nominator certainly made no serious attempt to address a POV concern. Neither did any of the other participants in the fora.

I am trying to be as nice about this as possible. I've told you that I was concerned the nominator subverted the deletion process. I am sorry, but I am disappointed you chose not to address my concern. I am sorry, but I thought it was part of your responsibilty, when closing an {{afd}}, to make sure the process conformed to policy? Geo Swan 07:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

lonelygirl15

Hi Coredesat, I saw the tag you added here. I'd like to help fix the OR issues and bring this article up to code; I've done some serious chopping both before and after you tagged it. Your initial tagging included the comment that you thought the article was borderline deletable. I'm unsure why you even said that as there are at least a dozen good references, and every section, except that on characters, appears well-sourced to me. I'm asking for guidance, I guess, with the characters section. Per WP:NOR, it is my understanding that primary sources are acceptable in plot and character descriptions for making non-controversial and non-interpretive statements. Would shorter bits about the main characters with possibly interpretive statements removed, removal of minor characters, and a brief plot description address the concerns you've raised? Your guidance is greatly appreciated. --JayHenry 18:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Art Education - Virginia Commonwealth University

Hello Coredesat, I appreciate the comments you put on the page that I am working on with my students. We do not want it to be deleted, so I will work to make the content more appropriate. Can you let me know what about it is self-promotional? I had hoped that it would be informational about the department of art education. It is interesting that most university wiki pages do not contain specifics about the colleges, schools, or departments. Instead, they simply link back to the general page on the topic, for instance the arts. However, that does not give a good picture of what that school or department is about, what the faculty do, what the student life is like, etc. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thank you, Melanie Vcu art education 02:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ebang

I think the user got really pissed off that several pages that he had created got speedied. He had created a page for his band, redirects to it, a page for everyone in the band, and several places they'd played. I tried to warn him subtly. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromised or pissed off, the user needed blocking. Cheers! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hurricane Hilda

Did you realize that half of the edits to the article (in its history) have occurred today? I'm not sure if Mitchazenia is done working on it for the day (the last edit was 55 minutes ago), but I really believe this is a start class article. I've never seen a Stub with 10 references. I'm planning on finishing the Hilda rainfall graphic tomorrow, which should give this article another graphic, and some rainfall perspective. Thegreatdr 21:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rafael Ernesto Flores-Obando

You speedy deleted this page, which was written entirely in spanish. a quick babelfish translation (see talk page) reveals that it does include several claims to notability. Being written in a language other than english has been suggested and rejected as a criterion for speedy deletion. Please don't auto-delete pages not in english under A7 without at least doing a free traslation. DES ^(talk) 23:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note about the notability of this person on the talk page. And if I put a speedy tag on it, please rest assured that I read the article. -Yupik 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pharos search engine deletion

Why did you delete that article? The search engine itself was highly relevant and wikiworthy with millions of euro in EU co-funding, cooperation between several famous companies and universities. You wrote that it was a commercial - so just put a "this article is written like a commercial"-tag on it, don't delete it.S. Solberg J. 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of PHAROS. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DES ^(talk) 16:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

deletion of globalboiling.com link

_{Subscript text}

It seems you are not allowing fair contributions to the links page by others.

I added globalboiling.com which I think is one of the best and ONLY pages on the internet that combines live scientific feeds to directly allow people to see the effect of current water temp and other conditions on current storms side by side. It is one of my favorite earth science pages and i think others would liek this very relevant info regarding storm strength monitoring.

It is reasonable to assume that anyone interesting in trpoical cyclones would thus be interested and happy to have this link.

It is the only page on the net doing this so I think it is a great reference.

It fits links guidleines and it is a non commercial page.

There are no required fees or restrictions for viewing and having only a few links to some amazon titles on global warming for further info which is certainly reasonable and not unusual.

It is not associated with some money grubbing organization seeking donations or a huge bureacracy with a political axe to grind or lobby for unlike most of the green or globalwarming or anti- warming political pages. In fact is is apolitical and even says so. It just addresses warming and its relation to storms and not the opinions as to why or which government causes it.

This is not link spam.

Please tell me why someone interested in cyclone formation would NOT be interested in this page www.globalboiling.com

If they would be interested then it should be included. it is a nice addition in the sopirit of the old interent before all big pages became some monsterous organization's page.

Personal I think wiki policy is and should be to allow people like me to contribute to wiki unless there is overriding gross attempt at doing something wrong. Otherwise why have a wiki enclyclopedia? Why not just call it coredesat's enclyclopedia?

I must say this is souring my enthusiasm for this particular wiki. maybe wikipedia has gotten too big for the little guy to contribute.

However I am assuming good intentions here as the guidleines suggest and asking for your justification for not allowing my contribution. perhaps you acted in mistaken haste.

-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geopilotwiki (talk • contribs) 21:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

Deletion of User:Nezdar

Hi. I was just wondering if you could give me a better explanation why you deleted my talk page, Nezdar. It's just a wikipedia article for something that not everybody choses to believe in. It's definitely not directed towards any person, real or made up. Some people in our community (a very weird one indeed) believe in this myth of Nezdar. My friends and I decided to create a User page for it. If you still want to keep it deleted, please let me copy and paste the article so I could try again later. Thanks again!!

Nezdar 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

I'm considering applying for adminship and I would like your feedback as you had blocked my account quite some time ago. Do you have any constructive criticism that may be useful in contemplation of adminship? Alan.ca 00:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

re: www.globalboiling.com and your comment below

I removed it because it is not directly relevant to the subject of tropical cyclones. wrong. It's just a collection of data ............just data? uhh data is what peopel want.

that might be (but doesn't appear to be) relevant to global warming,

storm formation specifically. read the page

which is, for the purpose of this encyclopedia, a separate subject. 

It also seems to be an activism website ( wrong show me where) for global warming, which is also not allowed. See WP:EL. --Coredesat 21:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

look at the page again. it clearly sources data showing ocean temperatures and sources data allowing users to see the effect that ocean temperatures have live on the formation of tropical storms abnd where they form. watch when a tropical cyclone is is happening and your will clearly see that. It is not an activist page in any way shape or form in fact is less so than other linked pages your have. it simple dispalys the data and request no action or contribution. unless of course you have a problem with a page that basically says forget the causes globalwarming has happened. Is that it? are you a closeted anti globalwarming theory activist? there are a lot f them lurking on wiki now trying to stamp ourt global warming facts hereever they show up. is that what is going on?

Again - take a look and see for yourself and please stop needlessly deleting relevant links. Now I don't know how to sign this so you will have to. it is hard enough just to figure out how to leave some random person who wrongly deletes your contributions comments at all. this comment stuff and even finding your page is hard enough. Sorry. now if you continue to delete my reasonable and relevant entey i will have to make a comp.laint against you. no person who is interested in further info on tropicual cyclones is going to find globalboiling.com uninteresting or irrelavant. shouldn't wikipedia err on the side of letting readers decide which links they like. do you really think you need to make that decision for them? i though wiki was suppose dto be open to user contributions. my first experinces with it are less than encouraging.

Deletion review notification

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of songs containing covert references to real musicians. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jmabel | Talk 19:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Nezdar Part 2

Thank you very much for giving me a valid explanation, instead of just saying "you could've done this or that. I appreciate that. Do you think you could let me copy and paste my article so I can edit it and stuff? Because I really don't want hours of hard work to go down the drain. Thank you very much!

Nezdar 10:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Monoliths in popular culture

There still exists a redirect page Monoliths in Popular Culture that redirects to the deleted page, that should probably be deleted too. Dr bab 19:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

Section headings

I'm trying to figure out a way to avoid having people duplicating the same arguments over and over again because they have no way of knowing what any of the headings refer to. Should I just change the headings themselves? Will that screw up people's watch-lists and such? --Dynaflow 03:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I actually merge sections in a way that wouldn't screw up ongoing discussions by causing people to lose their places? My intention isn't so much to shrink the arena as it is to simply check its burgeoning, out-of-control expansion.--Dynaflow 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One More Time With Nezdar

Thank you for pointing out my errors, I appreciate it. However...I really don't have the time to completely rewrite the article. If you could let me have it for about 5 minutes at any time so I could copy and edit it...I'd really appreciate that. Otherwise...it would just hours of wasted time. I re-read the policies, so this will NOT happen again. Thanks again for your time!

Nezdar 09:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

help reinstating the fring page you deleted

Hi Coredesat

I see you deleted the fring page [[1]] on March 19th and I can't edit it to reinstate.

I thought the post was objective following wiki guidelines - including several legitimate, objective 3rd party references and also referencing other industry players. However I see you deleted it for 'adveritising (07:33, 19 March 2007 Coredesat (Talk | contribs) deleted "Fring" (CSD G11, advertisement)).

We can edit the text to be more neutral / historical / objective. How can we go about reinstating this page?

Thanks for your guidance,

RashiSeital 12:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Coredesat

Sweet dear Coredesat, with my deepest apologies for taking so long to reply to you (I've got a like a two-day delay due to backlogged messages! ;) I wanted to drop by and thank you in person for you beautiful and warm words. It means a lot to me to see those friends that one remembers with joy, like you, and I only wish I had been around to support your RfA back in October (tho it doesn't look like you needed it anyway! ;) I hope we talk more asap. Have a great day, and ttyl! Phaedriel - 05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Delete please

If you don't mind: I inadvertently created an article Archive 3 a few minutes ago when archiving my talk page. I forgot the /slash before the Archive 3 name. After I saw what I did, I blanked it and applied the speedy delete template. Anyway it is a no-brainer speedy delete ... I just picked your ID from the AFD page. Thanks. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Dora's aftermath

I'm under the impression that a talk discussion is still active if it's still located on the talk page and not archived. I agree that we can disagree on how an article looks (that wasn't my NPOV point), but the comments there were highly personal and barely related to the article. Shouldn't that kind of talk be restricted to an individual's talk page, not the talk page of an article, sandboxed or not? Thegreatdr 06:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikia forum

If I created Forum:2007 Atlantic hurricane season/betting pools, could I leave a link to it in that box at the top of the forum? Asking you, since you created the forum. →Cyclone1→ 14:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Cyclone1(02:20-22-04-2007)

A very Californian RfA thanks from Luna Santin

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belated thank you for all of your kind words. I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we? Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be. Again, thank you. –Luna Santin

That's right, I'm finally trying to finish getting these out. I've always appreciated the support of the community, way back when, and so thank you for your trust, as well. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 23rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 17	23 April 2007	About the Signpost

Administrator goes rogue, is blocked	Wales unblocks Brandt, then reverses himself
Historian detained after his Wikipedia article is vandalized	Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
Canadian politician the subject of an edit war	Virginia Tech massacre articles rise to prominence
Wikipedia enters China one disc at a time	WikiWorld comic: "Buttered cat paradox"
News and notes: Unreferenced biographies, user studies, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of fring. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Seital 14:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Teen (Second nomination)

Um, can you reconsider? A count suggests no consensus, but the arguments for keeping had no basis in policy. They were based on Google hits and Alexa rank, and the main advocate of keeping (Oakshade) admitted there was not any verifiable information but that we should keep because she was really popular. Otherwise I will be taking this to DRV. --W.marsh 12:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well since you have edited the article yesterday but didn't reply, I've gone ahead at listed this at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 28. --W.marsh 12:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

fring review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of fring. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. I saw your comment that you couldn't find it - strangely I couldn't find it either - although I have a screen save of the original request there... so in any case, I requested the deletion review again. You should find it on today's log Seital 14:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Professional Information Security Association[2]

1. I don't see your logic based behind deleting the page.

2. Is your basis still on the notion of "Notability"? Spam? or otherwise?

3. Based on your statement, "Multiple keep arguments by a single user, as well," please explain further why a single user's argument is less valid than 3 or 4 debaters' arguments if arguments raised are equally good points? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mailcpathetsang (talk • contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC). Based on 3.4 Deletion Policy [3] "These processes are not decided through a head count," I appreciate if you would explain, per above, that "multiple keep arguments by a single user" would make a good reason to delete the page.Mailcpathetsang 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

4. Based on 3.4 Deletion Policy [4], "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted if there is consensus to do so. If there is no consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate." The discussion, which started on 25 April should be open for 3 more days. Mailcpathetsang 17:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC) The discussion page should remain open for another 3 days. Mailcpathetsang 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

5. I can summarize the other parties' arguments in 2 ways. (a) spam / advertising; (I will demonstrate that it is anything but) the link is intended for Journalists references as more and more press are asking for a short description of our Association (b) notabilities (more than 30 citations have been quoted from different and independent sources on the deleted site).Mailcpathetsang 17:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out this ref [5]. Blatant advertising.

1. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. The page applies to a group. The page however has few descriptive words of promotion. Rather they are honest description of the association. It is meant to be a quick and concise description of what the group does. If you find the wordings appealing, then I'm glad but that's not what they are meant to be.

2. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. Blatant has 2 meanings: [6] 1 : noisy especially in a vulgar or offensive manner : CLAMOROUS 2 : completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive I can't find the part in the article which is noisy, conspicuous, obtrusive, offensive, obvious, vulgar, etc. Nor did any other commentators implied so.

3. If a page has previously gone through a deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion. It was previously deleted through a speedy deleted and later reverted by an administrator [7]. I suppose this article already passed the Blatant Advertising criteria once WJBscribe has reverted the deletion.

Mailcpathetsang 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 30th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 18	30 April 2007	About the Signpost

Students in Western Civilization course find editing Wikipedia frustrating, rewarding	Statistics indicate breadth of Wikipedia's appeal
Featured lists reaches a milestone	Backlogs continue to grow
WikiWorld comic: "Calvin and Hobbes"	News and notes: Board resolutions, user studies, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Just wanted to drop you a line and let you know that you're a good admin and Wikipedian. Every interaction I've had with you has been positive, and that definitely says a lot. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

Hello. This is just a friendly notice that Wikipedia Weekly episode 19 has been released!

In this episode:

• New Mission and Vision statements for the WMF
• The Chaser springs Jimmy Wales
• new uses for categories
• vandalism studies
• Unreferenced BLPs.

.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/05/05/wikipedia-weekly-19/ and as always, you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 20:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to receive such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secrets of the Alchemist Dar/Unsolved puzzles

I was wondering, as you were the closing admin for this deletion, if you can noticed Secrets of the Alchemist Dar/Things worked out so far. Would you consider deletion of this as an extension of the AFD, or should it be nominated on its own? Serpent's Choice 07:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Heylo there!! ;-)

Dear Coredesat,

Long time no see! ;-)

I think you might remember me from the Halo AfDs in Summer 2006. ;-) A looooong time ago. ;-)

How're things going? ;-)

Cheers,

RelentlessRecusant 11:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

double deletion

Hi. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Gnostics had 2 pages listed for deletion Famous Gnostics was also proposed for deletion. jbolden1517^Talk 12:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

assistance reinstating fring page

Hi there Mr. Coredesat - I have tried to apply for a deletion review to repost the fring page but haven't been able to for some reason. Can you please reconsider the speedy deletion? I didn't pen the original post, but will rewrite it so it abides more closely by wikipedia guidelines. Really appreciate your assistance... --Seital 11:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 7th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 19	7 May 2007	About the Signpost

Four administrator accounts desysopped after hijacking, vandalism	Digg revolt over DVD key spills over to Wikipedia
Debate over non-free images heats up	Update on Wikimania 2007
Norwegian Wikipedian awarded scholarship	WikiWorld comic: "Friday the 13th"
News and notes: Election volunteers, admin contest, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)