User talk:Coren/Archive May 2007

FoF page mediation

Hi Coren, please check the FoF Talk page. There is a question to you regarding the draft rewrite page and discussions see "Parallel Discussions"). Thanks! Mario Fantoni 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote a great editor "Hullo" Coren - I second Mario's request - I added a related question. Thank you so much for taking the time to work with this article. We do so need your help. --Moon Rising 19:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added another question for you based on your answer. Thanks again. --Moon Rising 19:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren - I'm asking this here because I'm not sure if it belongs on the discussion page. At the bottom of the Draft article is the following: (Drafts should not end up in categories) Category:New religious movements Category:Fourth Way Category:Esoteric schools of thought Did you put that there? It appears that the draft has been put into categories. Am I missing something?

Thank you again for all the time you're taking to monitor our little group of squabbling editors. It's rally good to have you on board. --Moon Rising 04:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I justified the addition [1]. Aeuio 20:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OLA victim list

Oh, the reason why I added it was because of victim lists of other disasters, such as:

So, where do we draw the line? Are victim lists of shootings notable but victim lists of major fires not? WhisperToMe 02:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, OLA was just as notable of an event back in 1958 as the events above, as shown by this Life Magazine cover: http://www.olafire.com/JohnJajkowski.asp WhisperToMe 02:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the V-Tech list survived AFD; I am not sure if the second has. I do not believe the third has ever been subjected to AFD. Either way, I guess it depends on who is looking at the article. If there is a consensus that the victim list of OLA does not belong on WP, I could easily merge its contents back into the OLA article.

By the way, the reasoning on the V-Tech massacre page is that the victim students were notable as a group but not notable as individuals WhisperToMe 02:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I just want you to understand that's a judgment call for the quality of Wikipedia, not against the victims of the tragedy." - Yeah - I just want to see if this list is acceptable for Wikipedia :) - Columbine happened several years ago, and its list is still there, so there's a chance that an OLA list may be deemed acceptable. Then again, there is a difference between 1958 and 1999. Also, I established a separate page as the OLA article looked like it was becoming large. In addition, I wanted to explain the general fates of the classrooms (the paragraphs come before the actual victim lists) - I used a similar structure when I reorganized VT's victim list. WhisperToMe 02:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what I could do, for the moment, is simply merge the contents that I have (bullet lists and room descriptions to the article), and then wait until people say it is too big, and then separate it again once I reach that point :) WhisperToMe 02:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also realized that the fire article has some info not relevant to the actual fire - I.E. info about the school closing, so I will try to separate this information WhisperToMe 02:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :) WhisperToMe 03:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!

I've been watching your contributions in real time, and I'm really impressed by the great job you're doing on New Page patrol. Thanks for performing such an invaluable service to the encyclopedia. Cheers, alphachimp 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aql

The thing is, there is lots of information, but sadly it's not enough here. The reasons are two: 'Aql' has many differing views regarding its exact nature, and second, it's hard to make citations for every view because sometimes Shias don't like to voice this concept (it's see as shirk by Sunnis). I was hoping by creating this article people would see that there was a need for more information and would contribute. I can't contribute to this all by myself, after all. --Enzuru 22:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, alright, I understand. Thanks for your help, then. :) --Enzuru 22:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Sheik clip

This clip is very important, I find it insulting that you would give me a warning message for creating a legitimate page. Biggspowd 00:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Whitcomb

Thanks for the newpages patrol! Just wanted to bring the above article to your attention. It may have just been a mistake, but please be careful when tagging that articles fit into a speedy deletion criteria. This article may be a copyvio (I looked but didn't find) but it's so clearly not an A7 candidate that I wanted to drop you a note about it. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit 00:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are most certainly correct. I have no idea why I might have thought this an A7. I'm guessing it was in the middle of a lot of WP:BAND beef poo, and got thrown out with the bathwater. (How's that for mixing metaphors!) Guess that's why the editor-tags-admin-delete double check is a Good Thing(tm). :-) Coren 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been there. Article after article of "I-am-the-coolest-person-in-the-universe", and you start to see double. I figured it was a mistake, as a quick glance at your contributions raised no alarms:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol

Oh good, you're here! I can go on break for a while. Garbage eradication works up an appetite. :-) Realkyhick 23:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

History of Wicca

Thanks for coming by this article again and for the note of approval. I do occasional patrolling myself but I'm not always so diligent as to come back to all the pages I've tagged! Kim dent brown 05:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on your RFA

I closed your Request for Adminship based on your withdrawal on that page itself. Since you tried to explain what happened with the global warming speedy deletion, I'll respond. Clearly, as a matter of policy, you were correct to make sure the article stayed deleted. However, what concerned me was the way you handled the stress of the situation. At a certain point, you should have tried to ignore the other user, or if that was impossible, ask for intervention at WP:ANI. You don't have to assume that Rualua (or whatever the name) believed she was helping the encyclopedia, but you also don't have to assume that she was attacking your integrity. That's what bothered me.

This and your level of experience go together. As one improves, so will the other. Best regards. YechielMan 07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about websites

I've actually received this question by email (wow-- first time I get one through Wikipedia) but felt my answer deserved being talkpaged: Coren 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you explain why the page I created about the Record Collectors Guild (.org) was deleted? I'm sure the site meets notability requirements. Thank you,

Chris (almost certainly Chriswhowell).

Well, I'm afraid I don't remember the specific page, but here are a few pointers that might give you a good idea:

The criterion for notability of websites are fairly stringent, (See WP:WEB) and only a very tiny fraction of websites can meet them in the first place.

Even if the web site was notable enough to meet those criterion, the article might have neglected to specify why that is (make a claim of notability) in the text. I (or any other editor) cannot guess at the reliability, it has to be spelled out. Links to reliable sources to establish notability are especially useful there.

Sometimes, articles about web sites get deleted per CSD G11 (advertisement) rather than CSD A7 (notability)-- if that was the case, then the article was written in such a way as to read like a press release or ad copy rather than an encyclopedia article. Superlative claims with no independent citations ("The best X in the world", "The most important Y", "The first Z") are especially suspect, and poorly wikified articles with only external links to the subject, are especially likely to get the axe under those criterion.

Getting an article about a web site or business in the encyclopedia is especially difficult: the notability and inclusion guidelines are especially stringent, and editors tend to be vigilant about them. But it's important that they are; wikipedia is not the yellow pages or an online directory, and it would quickly crumble under the spam if those guidelines were relaxed. Coren 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful Deletion

"Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Prahlada Gurukula. It is considered vandalism, which under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Coren 02:27, 26 April 2007"

...prahalada gurukula is a legit organization...did u not see the website i posted in the article? how is it nonsense?

Brownlightnin66 00:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Brownlightnin66[reply]

(also posted to your talk page)

Well, I didn't delete the article, simply tagged it for review by an administrator. But from what I can remember, it was rather incoherently written and impossible to understand. Perhaps you were a little hasty in posting it? It is good practice to use the Show preview button before you save an edit so you can see what the result will look like to readers before you save it. Be careful to not use terminology or concepts specific to the organization in the article (at least without defining them).

You might want to read the manual of style, which will give you good advice on formatting and laying out an article so that it can be clear and readily understood.

Besides that, please remember that the notability guidelines, especially for a website, are likely to require more than a single link to a website owned by the organization you describe in the article.

Read the pointers I've given you, and try your hand at that article again. It's a bit more work, but it's very satisfying. :-) Coren 01:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thxx =) Brownlightnin66 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)Brownlightnin66[reply]

Sources and Unsources etc.

It looks like we caught it at the same time, but just in case you were wondering the template I believe you were looking for was {{unsourced}} *grin* --Xnuala (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, {{sources}} does the same thing! Cool, I learned something here!--Xnuala (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Suburbs

Please see the talk page on this article before you consider deleting it. Eyedubya 02:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhood character

I've added a couple of references. Please could you indicate exactly which phrases you would like sources for. Thanks.Eyedubya 07:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaTempo Lounge

This internet radio channel has over 5,000 concurrent listeners. I am contesting the deletion. Please consult the guidelines on WP:CORP and comment on the articles talk page. Thanks--NightRider63 03:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Steel-Perkins

Thank you for your message about this article. Please do not delete it. The guy is a very famous trumpter but with hard to find biographical info. That's why we need to make a start on the article so that other editors can collaborate and help out. Crustyman 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my page Rick Edwards have to be deleted?

Tell me please —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Referenced (talk • contribs) 16:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Zalpa Bersanova

I am still building this page; this might take a few minutes. Thanks, User:Samian 23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Oh, I didn't know about that. Thanks for informing me! Thank you so much!! Really appreciate it))[reply]

Chill

I wouldn't go nearly so far as to say that Wetaskiwin First United Church was "introducing an inappropriat page". I'm sure it was a good-faith contribution. There are templates such as {{nn-warn}}, {{firstarticle}}, and {{chinup}} that are less WP:BITEy. Herostratus 19:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, well. I don't use twinkle, but that sounds like a good reason not to. Perhaps you should drop a line to the master of twinkle. Can you not pop out of it when desired? Herostratus 20:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public Domain

You incorrectly tagged the article National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research with a speedy requesting deletion of it as a copyvio of www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=127. As the url should have told you, this is a work of the US Government, and all such works are in the public domain, in the US and internationally. The only exception is when the page reproduces a item which is under 3rd party copyright,and this is not the case here. See Wikipedia:Copyright_FAQ#Public_domain. Ideally, the source should have been included at the bottom of the page, but I put it there, and that is sufficient by the MOS and all WP standards. DGG 10:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I agree with you on this one specifically--you asked a new editor to go and get permission for something he did not need to get permission for--. I don't think we should tell eds. rules about copyright that are stricter than the actual rules--its confusing. I would simply have reminded him to add the line of attribution.

But more generally I certainly agree with you that it is not good editing to simply copy things over, no mater from where they are copied. Even that US page had a final two paragraphs of what mounted to advertising puffery about how great they were (which I removed). And even if someone were to get permission from one of those very important sounding visual artists we keep seeing at speedy to copy their page, it would still have to be cut in half and rewritten and sourced.

And I have also thought that people who take things from old encyclopedias and that sort of thing would indicate exactly what part of their article has been copied. But most WP eds. don't seem to see the need for this. I'm not sure when you began editing, but when I started half a year ago I was startled by the way they got started here by simply adding it masses of outdated PD material. Best wishes, and I'll see you around. DGG 19:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coren

Hello, I have changed my name, have you got any moods with any of my articles? just check that there at your standards.

P:S You blocked me grrrrrrr. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Degrade (talk • contribs) 14:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My page

Hello, iam quite new to this, so apologise if iam making a mistake-

you have said that my page is up for speedy deletion because its about a band, but i dont understand, howcome? there are other bands and artists on wikipedia whos pages are left untouched for example if you type in the who, you go to their page, 50 cent, you go to his page. they are both examples of bands and people the MDs are a band aswell, howcome they cant be left on the site? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sameemtak (talk • contribs) 18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Rick Edwards

Hi there. I personally feel that article qualifies for {{speedy}}, but as I have already blocked the author once (on an unrelated article) I am a little diffident about deleting it. I would not take offence if you or he put it up for AfD. Or we could just wait until someone else finds it.--Anthony.bradbury 18:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will leave it and wait on events. As I say, I have blocked him once, and do not wish it to appear that I am operating a vendetta against him.--Anthony.bradbury 18:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:My page Re:Coren

Ok, thank you for explaining to me. Although I am very upset that the page is up for deletion, iam not going to rant at you, and wikipedia. That would just be pointless and get me nowhere. However, The MDs are not notable, WorldWide, as you explained. But, they are a notable in the school, infact they are quite big in the school. I appreciate that you dont know that though, so if the page is not allowed to be exsistent on its own, will i be allowed to create a section on the HYMERS COLLEGE page about The MDs. This way, it does not break the rule about notable bands and what not, but rather it fits in under HYMERS COLLEGE (school) as it is a Notable band inside that school.

I will be very greatful if you understand what iam saying and approve it. Thanks for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sameemtak (talk • contribs) 18:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My page

Ok, thats fair enough. I am just quite depressed now, because i spent about 2 hours making that page now its going to be deleted :( oh well Il keep in mind what you said about the editors on the other page. Thanks for your time anyway. Seeya around. Sameemtak 18:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC) (<-- I remembered :)! )[reply]

Computer/Human?

This may be a little off topic, but, you are a real person right? Do you use a spell check of something your spellin is absolutley flawless how do you do that everytime Sameemtak 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UGOPlayer

Just sending you this to say that I do not appreciate your nomination of UGOPlayer, a stub article which its importance was debated and decided as keep a long time ago, for speedy deletion seconds after I created it. I have disputed the speedy deletion. If you'd like to change it to an AFD, I'd really appreciate it. I made comments on the talk page.Sbloemeke 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Channel 43 deletion?

Thank you for the tips, and sorry for the top load. All things appreciated. I hope to get this whole thing right soon.Briankc43 20:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spelling

My own spelling is so bad--and I have yet to see a spelling corrector that could cope with it-- that I never assume others is deliberate, and by my standards that's a joke, but also true. There's a difference between looking around at what's on a talk page &and making what is intended as friendly comments, in contrast to stalking. II dont have time or patience to stalk, and wouldnt want to anyway. There's always something new. (another joke), just as I assume your remarks were. pax, and back to editing. DGG 20:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also make other sorts of mistakes, and I indeed was unclear about the situation--I assumed A.B. would be able to figure it out--and I suppose he did. Sorry if it caused any confusion. anyway, back to editing. DGG 21:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator

You user page claims that you are, by day, a sysadm. Most editors would take that to mean that you are a wikipedia administrator; you do not appear on the list thereof. I would be grateful if you would explain what this comment means, as falsely representing yourself as an administrator on wikipedia is an extremely serious offence.--Anthony.bradbury 20:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding the page. You may like to look at the answer I have sent to User:DGG, which you will see indicates that I find no evidence to back up his allegations. I am afraid that these things happen sometimes. I think he saw a comment you made to User:Degrade, and misunderstood its provenance.--Anthony.bradbury 21:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splurgle

April 2007

I believe Splurgle is very important in the industry of Flash Animations and deserves to be recognized. Furthurmore, this website is perfect for displaying the future best Flash Animator alive. Please halt all deletings of that page. Splurgle is not inappropriate in any way!!! Thank you for your co-operation in this matter-for it is highly appreciated. Thank you. YoHommie 20:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, sorry for bothering you, harassing you, troubling you, etc. The world may never know of Splurgle's great existance... For now. Muhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Brownsville Elementary School

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Brownsville Elementary School, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (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. Coren 20:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it should be deleted; however, I was moving content written by GriersonOrigins (talk · contribs) and Censorships (talk · contribs) on Escambia County School District into its own article, as it did not belong in that one, IMO. You'd best notify them instead. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend using a variation on {{produserpagewarningwelcome}}. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brunet (pharmacy)

Hi, could you please elaborate on the talk page of the article why you tagged it for speedy deletion? I'm having trouble understanding why a large pharmacy chain is not "notable". AirOdyssey (Talk) 02:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hierarchical Linear Models - why deleted?

Hi, could you please explain why you tagged Hierarchical linear models for speedy deletion? It'd also me nice to know why you don't give a reason for every article you so designate. Would it slow you down that much? [| Talk] RedHouse18 22:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, both the speedy tag and the deletion log would have told you what the reason was: this article was written as an advertisement and made no claim of notability. It's important, when writing an article, to stay away from both wording and contents that simply promotes the products or services of a company; or that expounds on a service or concept exclusive to that company, unless they are notable and properly sourced.

   Incidentally, I did not delete the article. I tagged it for deletion, and an admin then reviewed it and deleted it. So at least two persons agreed that the tag was warranted. You might want to take a moment to read the guidelines above, and the manual of style. Those will help you write articles that will stand the test of time.  :-) Coren 23:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As you know, I'm a relatively inexperienced wikipedia editor. I'm confident that the deletion of my article on hierarchical linear models was a mistake though. They are unarguably notable. One of my mistakes though, was not realizing that there was already an article Hierarchical linear modeling. I should have just made it redirect. I'd like to have my article undeleted though, so I can copy some of the content into the pre-existing article. Is that possible? RedHouse18 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coren

I am new to Wikipedia and now I know that I committed some mistakes like removing the speedily deletion tag at first, but then I appropriately put the HANG ON tag. The article I am writing about Chilorio's contains pertinent information about a Mexican restaurant chain located in Miami (not inappropriate content). After I put the hang on tag I explained the article in my talk page and after a few minutes my article was deleted. The main article I was creating was the complete name of the company Chilorio's Very Mexican but a lot of people know this restaurant chain by Chilorio's or Chilorios, and the search engine doesn't differentiate among them, that is why I created the other articles(Chilorios and Chilorio's) with the same information as Chilorio's Very Mexican so people could search for this company any way they called it, please let me know if this is a VIOLATION and how should I make the article so that the search engine finds it weather you input the whole name or just part of it. Please reconsider adding the article again as I did a lot of research of this company and it looks really professional like other restaurant articles.

Thanks, --Mexican001 13:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again:-)

Re: Hollar, I declined to delete it as nonsense. It is general consensus that G1 only applies to patent nonsense; articles that are nonsense on their face. Plausible articles which turn out to be hoaxes are actually nonsense, but that can only be verified through research. For that reason we require debate (unless of course it is deleted via proposed deletion).--Fuhghettaboutit 22:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Welcome

Coren, thanks for all of the welcome links and info on my user page... very useful. Artnscience 16:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Fellowship of Friends

Hi Coren, could you please comment on the discussion that is happening about Mario's recent edits on the Fellowship of Friends page? It seems that Mario and I are reading the same text, but somehow find a different meaning in it. Thanks Wine-in-ark 22:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Coren: The FOF discussion page is heating up again and the edit truce is not entirely being respected. We have a new and active editor. Looking at your discussion page, it's easy to see why it must be hard for you to spend time on this controversial article - you're spread so thin - do you really have a day job? We miss you, please visit us soon.--Moon Rising 08:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren, it has been an interesting process editing the FOF page, and I'm impressed with your skills and knowledge in mediating. My main goal in getting involved was to add some information into the article from a book that I recently discovered online (one that I felt would help to balance a very imbalanced article), to pitch in as much as I could with the editing, and most importantly to express my views to someone in the wikipedia community, and I've accomplished each of those things for now. Meanwhile, what do you think? Do you think the article will eventually reach some level of consensus and stability (without the further need for a mediator?), and that we'll have a fair and balanced description of the Fellowship that will stand the test of time without any further editing wars? Many of us will be watching. It's an interesting experiment, and in an odd/twisted sort of way, a lot of fun. Best regards, Artnscience 02:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FOF

Could you please make a comment after my second paragraph that I just wrote on the talk page, and give your opinion on this, as I don't know how to explain this anymore. Aeuio 23:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really need your opinion here. Aeuio 00:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Coren, There has been a request to replace you as a mediator because an editor feels that you cannot devote sufficient time to the process. Other editors are saying "absolutely not", and that it would take another mediator a long time to get up to speed and would probably not spend more time on the article than you do. I don't think anyone has even hinted that you are not a good mediator, just that the process is going too slowly. I think I speak for all of us that we'd like to get to a point where we have a good WP article that is balanced and will not require frequent edits and monitoring. I think you should be the one to decide if you continue or not. You're doing a fine job and I appreciate your efforts to bring consensus. If you have time to look at the page, some editors are on the brink of making personal attacks on each other, and someone needs to douse the flames. A final thought - you recently corrected one of my edits to change "it's" to "its". I can't believe I did that. I hate when I see this mistake made, by me or anyone else. Thank you.--Moon Rising 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neighbourhood character

Hi, sorry if this is the wrong place to put this (still haven't quite the hang of this yet), but I request the categories you added about wikification etc etc be removed from this article, unless you're not happy with the references that have been added, if so, please explain. Thanks.Eyedubya 02:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Informal mediation

Will you be continuing as mediator over at Fellowship of Friends? The natives are getting restless. ;o) I see you haven't logged on too much recently, so if time is a bit short, I understand. If it's just that you need someone to keep things on a productive track during busy points, I can assist if you're interested. I hope this finds you well. Vassyana 02:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For all your hard work sorting out the various nonsense on Wikipedia. D0t 06:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Monroy

I would appreciate if you would not accuse me of altering articles when a simple glance at the page history would have told you that I had not done so. Juansidious 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Korben band

I've removed the speedy deletion tag from the above article. While the subject might not be notable, the article does assert notability in a reasonable way. You may wish to list it at WP:AFD instead, to get a broader consensus on the article. Thanks for your time and your hard work reporting these articles - even though I'm not deleting this particular one, your efforts are very much appreciated. Kafziel ^Talk 12:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FoF

This is might get ugly...we need some outside comments. Thanks Aeuio 22:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

page deleted again

Please help me out. I am TRYING to post a page that describes and defines several professional certifications. I am not trying to "sell" this; I am trying to inform individuals about what these are. In 2008, Medicaid will require that power wheelchairs be prescribed by people with these credentials, and it would help if they knew what ATP, ATS, and RET represented.

My article was first deleted because it was tagged as a copyright infringement. I used information from the website of the professional organization that provides the credential, and it matched another website that also cited that same information. But I have permission to post this (and actually, was ASKED to do so). The article was deleted before I could respond.

I attempted to address the copyright issue through the permissions email and assorted User talk postings, but the article was deleted a second time without comment.

I shortened the article so that it was primarily verifiable definitions, with an external link to the source. Now, it looks as if you deleted it because I had an external link to the source I was citing?! What is wrong with that, particularly considering the copyright questions?

PLEASE help. I have posted previously to a Wiki, but this is my first Wikipedia posting (and frankly, after this experience, probably my last). And I am having trouble understanding what I am doing wrong and how to fix it.

Kmilchus 00:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup on Assistive Technology Credentials page

IF I tried to reformat my Assistive Technology Credentials article to be similar to Wikipedia's entry for Rehabilitation counseling, might it then be acceptable (I would rename it to Assistive Technology Service Providers)? It too defines a credential and credentialling organization (with external links), but adds a paragraph describing the profession. That will take a bit more effort, but it fits exactly with what I am trying to achieve by posting this information (I'm really NOT trying to sell anything!).

But will that approach likely be acceptable or should I just give up now? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kmilchus (talk • contribs) 01:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Feedback requested

In spite of your discouragement, I've made another attempt at what I am trying to post, but posted it at the end of my talk page. Could you take a look and let me know if this might be acceptable? I've tried to model it off of the entry for Rehabilitation counseling. Thanks. Kmilchus 03:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your warning

Hi. You just left me a warning. I was tagging a sockpuppet, but I forgot to type the "User:" bit. See User:0CD therapist and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder. We've been chasing him around Wikipedia all day, and he's made about ~~six~~ seven sock-puppet rampages in the last 24 hours through lots of articles. Would you mind taking back your warning? --Dynaflow babble 05:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see we've also been db-tagging in close proximity. It looks like I zapped the first incarnation of Assistive Technology Credentials, and you got another: User talk:Kmilchus. =D --Dynaflow babble 06:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Dynaflow babble 23:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary stubs

Yep - one of my pet peeves, but I understand the reasons behind it... I think it's the only one that don't follow the xxx-film-stub pattern. I guess because we generally use just "documentary" and not "documentary film" in standard English use! One of these days I guess I should get around to doing something about making it consistent with the others... ;)SkierRMH 23:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cirque du Freak

um why is it inapropriate? Manplush 00:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Manplush[reply]

you are right i should wait until the show is confirmed to be real. well on some websites they supposedly siad that the series exists, but i'm pondering if it is real or not, well i made that mistake before and i got blocked becuase someone on another website lied about other things. i was naive. you may delete it. i'll wait to and if the show is confirmed i will create it again and provide rescources and external links. Manplush 00:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)Manplush[reply]

Speedy delete of The Kansan?

Could you remove the tag. It's part of the Kansas City, Kansas article. It is a stub. J. D. Redding 00:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of I.d Centric

I'm not advertising the product at all; the product doesn't EXIST any more. You might be able to speedy delete under notability, but advertising? What? Mrmoocow 02:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitchurch-Stouffville Public Library

Hi, I notice you propose to delete this entry, which is in the category of "public libraries in Ontario". Could you tell me more about the reason? I notice you are a very busy person, but I am curious about that. Gerogia 03:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. That makes sense Gerogia 13:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]