Jump to content

User talk:east718/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please contact me on my talk page.

Archive
Archives

Your election page

See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight elections/February 2009 — Rlevse • Talk • 01:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Image protection

Hello there. For the past month or so, I've have been manually collecting and gathering the links of commons images for administrators to protect when they are on the main page. I was just wondering what the status of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Main page protection robot was. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 23:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot's dead. If you know Python, feel free to use my code as a launch pad for a similar bot. There are a couple bad bugs in the toolserver's copy of the bot though, so get back to me regarding that if you find an admin willing to run the bot. — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for your checkuser candidacy

Dear East.718, I have a question regarding your checkuser candidacy, but I'm not sure how best to ask it because I'm not really supposed to be here anymore. So I'll just ask and let you decide how to answer it.

I am best known as Shalom Yechiel (talk · contribs) and also used some other accounts. I did "right to vanish" last week and am no longer active. My concern relates to a comment you made at my RFA last summer.

Let me state (especially to certain others who may be reading this) that I'm not upset about your RFA vote, your opinion or anything like that. I emailed you afterward, you didn't respond and I left it there. You stated erroneously that I had vandalized Wikipedia during a previous RFA, but you were just parroting someone else's error so I'm not blaming you for that.

What concerns me specifically is this sentence: "Look at it this way: I have no doubt Shalom is a great guy and wouldn't hesitate to buy him a beer, but at the same time I wouldn't consider employing him."

Now I understand the context: an RFA is comparable to a job application in that a candidate must be vetted for competence and trustworthiness, and you didn't feel it appropriate to support me. Taken out of context, or just taken literally, it could be read in a much more sinister way, that you might actually not employ me for a job based on my Wikipedia actions. If that's what you meant, then I have reason to wonder if you should be learning private information about users.

My current location can be determined from my IP address signed to this post, and if I can trust your userpage we live in the same U.S. state and we share a professional interest in science. It's not entirely inconceivable that our paths might cross off-wiki at some point in the future, and if that were to happen I would be happy to meet you. I'm just worried that, if I take you literally, you might reject a hypothetical job application to work at your structural engineering firm in 2014 because I vandalized Wikipedia in 2007. Keep in mind that my real name is out there, and other private information about me is available on the checkuser email list.

If this sounds too much like I'm just complaining about myself, I'll ask you a different question: would you employ Gregory Kohs to a position where he is professionally competent, or would you hold his Wikipedia exploits against him? What about other banned users, or other users who are not banned but got into trouble? Can you separate your private, confidential knowledge about users from any possible future real-life interaction you might have with them?

Thanks for reading the question, and I hope you will have a good response. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Shalom. I'm going to focus mainly on your fear of retaliation... I'm afraid you just misunderstood. This is partly my fault since I didn't explicitly label my rhetoric as that, but what can I do now? The metaphor was for Wikipedia application only, in the sense that I would not hire a former vandal for a middle management position or security officer (a rough equivalent to an admin on enwp). I certainly wouldn't care about the hobbies of a potential colleague, - fucking around on Wikipedia in your spare time seven years ago isn't particularly concerning. Two other things to consider if your unlikely scenario ever pops up: 1/ it would be most immoral of me (not to mention probably illegal) to use privileged information from Wikipedia to make decisions on behalf of my firm, and 2/ I would recuse from making such a decision myself, since my perception of the applicant would be slightly colored.
Best of luck in college, and with whatever career path you decide to take. Send me mail if you'd like to chat or want advice on anything. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, East718. I was hoping you would answer something along those lines. I will not be voting in the elections, but you have answered my concern admirably. Good luck. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baibars picture removed with no other substitute!

Do you have a link to the image? From the reason that I gave, the image was hosted on Wikimedia Commons when I deleted it. If you can't find it there under the same filename, try asking a Commons admin for help, like Rjd0060 (talk · contribs) or Kanonkas (talk · contribs). Cheers! — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for your checkuser candidacy from Synergy

Some[dubious – discuss] may feel you are too "behind the scenes" (taken from your statement). What assurances can you provide that you will be more open to discussion, or likely to be more active on-wiki? Synergy 00:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always open to discussion of my actions, and have always campaigned for more criticism of administrators' actions - without criticism of our behavior, how are we to become better at what we do? On-wiki discussion is strongly preferred by me to email/IRC/whatnot, unless there's a specific reason to avoid it, such as dealing with grave harassment of editors or discussing material that's governed by the privacy policy. (Or, just for idle banter in the vein of #wikipedia-en, which would be a misuse of project resources if it were on some talkpage.) In the two cases I mentioned, pedophilia advocacy has always traditionally been handled by ArbCom and admins working closely with them, and the sockpuppeteer that Rlevse was targeting is very intelligent and subtly disruptive (think Robdurbar or Archtransit). On-wiki discussion may not be prudent in the latter case because of both the privacy aspect, and the possibility of the sockpuppeteer catching on and changing their style up. I think these are acceptable instances where private conversation among a small group of admins or checkusers would be acceptable. My current six week long period of inactivity is involuntary and is because of computer downtime; I don't edit from work. I was averaging around 400 edits a month for 2008, it's up to you to decide if that's active enough. :) — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BRFA

Hi east718, any progress on this bot request? Thanks in advance, Richard0612 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer working on that project, and there's no estimated time for completion. If you can find a Python coder and an admin who's willing to run the bot, please send them my way. — east718 | talk | 00:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a post on the bot owners' noticeboard asking if anyone wishes to take up the task. Richard0612 18:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A favour....

Hey East718, I am very surprised and very very grateful for WP:FABS....any chance of WP:BABS too? :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cas. I actually tried generating a list for wp:babs a while ago, but there's just too many articles in Category:Birds to list on one page. I think although an updated wp:babs wouldn't display, the "recent changes linked" feature would still function correctly. Another editor who finds wp:dabs useful told me that that's all they really use the page for, so if you can live with just that I can get the bot started again. — east718 | talk | 00:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I used it to get an idea of the size of articles to get a heads up on what to work on for GA and FAC at times - anything is a bonus :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Running a bot from your main account

Hi. Back in November I asked you to stop running a bot from your main admin account. You replied stating "...and am committing to getting the formal approval done by December." Did you do this? If so, could you please provide a link to the BRFA?--Rockfang (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess that's one more promise I've broken, and I'm sorry for that. I've asked the toolserver admins to shut them all down. — east718 | talk | 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Red Wings

Hello, could you please revert the deletion of :File:Hamilton Red Wings.png? It was deleted due to not being on a page for more than 7 days, but only because of a bad anon edit that wasn't noticed until today. DMighton (talk) 06:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Fox planets and locations

Would it be possible for you to rollback the deletion of the List of Star Fox planets and locations page? The deletion reason left said it had redirected to a page that didn't exist. I know there was a working version of this page at some time, and I have a few interwiki links that go to the article. I cannot find any other articles related to the contents, so I have nowhere to send the links. Thanks for looking into it.
--NeoPhoenixTE (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to be at List of locations in the Star Fox series, which was deleted after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in the Star Fox series. The discussion was borderline, so I'm willing to let you start a new article that meets editorial guidelines - no need to go to WP:DRV. :) — east718 | talk | 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way I could get a hold of the original data so I can clean it up? I'm not sure where the pictures are located, and most of the information there was quite useful and can probably still be used in either a new article by this name, or a subsection of the StarFox page (possibly under the recurring elements section).
NeoPhoenixTE (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My photo deleted

Ummm I had a photo that I TOOK and it was deleted. I belive YOU deleted it from the Germantown, oh article. It was a photo of an abandoned building. I dont understand why it was deleted. It was copyright protected from me because I took the photo! MarkDonna (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution, but you didn't specify how you wanted your image to be used. Check out our help page for image creators and select a license; I've undeleted File:Abandoned Germantown.JPG in the meantime. — east718 | talk | 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS images

Can you verify that we have permission for File:Martinkampmann.jpg and File:CarlosCondit.jpg? Both are on the respective Sherdog Fight Finder pages: [1][2]. --aktsu (t / c) 12:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it, but I'll run it down. — east718 | talk | 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we please restore this file you deleted?

Hi, I'm referring to # 00:03, 30 January 2009 East718 (Talk | contribs) deleted "File:Maybach fair use.jpg" ‎ (CSD I5: Non-free image that was not used for more than seven days)

I didn't realize there was a time limit. I failed to add the image and publish the article for a couple of weeks. I would now like to finish and publish the article, with the image included. Can you restore it, or point me to the instructions on how to restore it? Also please let me know if I should have formatted this message better somehow. Thanks. A Friendly Nerd (talk) 20:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free images aren't allowed in userspace. When I'm writing a draft and need to use a non-free image, I'll just stick in a placeholder free image (check out user:east718/PE for an example). Let me know a couple days before you're planning on moving the draft to mainspace, and I'll undelete it for you. — east718 | talk | 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to publish the article today. I may try to re-up it today, I hope I won't offend anyone. BTW I looked at that page, and I see an image there for "dangermouse", which appears to be the actual image, not a substitute image? Perhaps I misunderstood? A Friendly Nerd (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the image (and there certainly wouldn't be a problem if you reuploaded it yourself). The "Danger Mouse" image is actually the cover for The Grey Album, not It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back by the way - the reason I chose it was because it's free and of similar dimensions to the Public Enemy cover. — east718 | talk | 04:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fedor

I have nominated Fedor Emelianenko for a featured article candidacy here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. .--2008Olympianchitchat 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, a blast from the past. :) I'll leave some comments there. — east718 | talk | 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image restoration request

File:Theovertureposter1.jpg and File:Overture soundtrack cover.jpg were deleted due to CSD I-5, but their orphanage was due to vandalism. Could you restore them, please? --Paul_012 (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please update your archive box. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — east718 | talk | 00:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko

I invite you to add another comment to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko as to whether the use of the flag icons in this article is appropriate or not. Discussion at the articles related WikiProject did not provide consensus because, I believe, the editors involved are not a unbiased party. During the nomination, the flags were removed and then readded to the article. So your participation at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fedor Emelianenko do establish whether the icons should stay or go is needed. Regards, — Moe ε 22:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how working on MMA articles biases one in any way for or against flag use.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those editing the MMA articles are the ones who put the flags in the article to begin with, coupled with the fact you watch MMA and edit MMA articles. Bias is defined as having a tendency or preference towards something, which those who follow MMA would have more so than other Wikipedia editors. — Moe ε 22:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying people watching MMA are particularly fond of flags? --aktsu (t / c) 22:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laughing out loud, not at all. People who standalone watch MMA do not have a bias on flags. I'm saying those who watch MMA, edit MMA articles and who added the flags to the article in the first place, are the ones who are biased in discussion about flag usage in MMA articles. — Moe ε 23:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<- I'll comment there. BTW, I think you'll find that the opinion of the MMA wikiproject is split, most likely in the same proportions that you'll see a split in opinion of the wider community. — east718 | talk | 04:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Martinphi

I see you have removed this talk page. I wonder why? It may contain information relevant to a possible future discussion about him. In a comment I posted just an hour ago, I wrote that I think he's currently blocked, not banned. I also linked to a post by JzG on that talk page in which he expressed his hope that Martinphi will request an unblock someday. I think you should leave his talk page open in case he will? Cheers, theFace 18:38, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was mistakenly in CAT:TEMP, so I restored it and removed it from the category. — east718 | talk | 04:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Optimized image 4cb8c844.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Optimized image 4cb8c844.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File uploaded by User:718 Bot redirected here. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 00:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit War

I have a question for you. There is an edit war that is starting. The source is a quote referenced within another source. Source A is trying to make a point and quotes source B. Source B can't be found so we must assume that source A quoted source B within context.

The other user is quoting source B as a source to write his own Point of View. The other user is ignoring source A's context. I have reworded so that it is kept within the context of source A. The other user rewrites their own Point of View, I reword to keep in context, etc. etc. etc.

The last time I made the change my edit summary was (This is taken from the source. If you want to quote from a source within a source then get the original source and post it here so it can be reviewed in its entirety for proper context.)

I figure it's going to keep going back and forth. So what should be done next?--Qwertasdfgzx (talk) 02:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the other involved editors, it doesn't have to keep going back and forth as an "edit war". I've partly been reverting your edits because they have resulted in the formation of sentence fragments and other nasty grammatical problems that have been difficult to clean up. Sorry if that was unclear to you. In the end, all that needed to be done is the construction of a decent sentence with the citation. I've done so, so that now what you wanted included has been included. Personally, I don't think the opinion of an M.A. thesis author is terribly important, but it's there for now. I suggest bringing up the issue on the article's talk page the next time you see more than one editor reverting your edits, as was the case here. It's also best not to accuse others of having some malicious "agenda" in your edit summaries, since that's not a great manifestation of WP:AGF. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really don't have the time or resources to sort this out. Try the reliable sources noticeboard or asking for a third opinion. — east718 | talk | 04:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAC image review: Premiere (The O.C.)

Per this, I have emailed the people in question but assuming that they do not get back to me, I want to be ready to replace the images. Would this be better? Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great to me. Have you tried calling Ms. Leder, by the way? Tell me if the email contact peters out without a reply by the end of the work week, and I'll do it first thing Monday to get this licensing issue sorted out. — east718 | talk | 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a reply along the lines of: It was taken without my permission but I quite like it being on Wiki. I have repied to try and negotiate a PD release from them. I'll keep you updated. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I got permission and have uploaded it to Commons (File:Manhattan Beach pier south.jpg) pending OTRS. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! I'll leave a comment wrt this on the FAC page. — east718 | talk | 09:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and incase it matters the OTRS ticket has now been confirmed. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:UAlbany seal lowres.png

Just a courtesy note to let you know that I've undeleted this file. You correctly deleted it as orphaned for over 7 days, but it only became orphaned due to vandalism, which was overlooked at the time. Stifle (talk) 19:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the notice. — east718 | talk | 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MysteryCreature (Chupacabra).jpg

Hi there. A few days ago you deleted File:MysteryCreature (Chupacabra).jpg as a non-free work that was orphaned for 7 days. However, I think I recall it being a work of a Texas law enforcement officer performed in the course of his/her duties, so I thought it was in the public domain. It's possible I'm mistaken about either of those two points, but if it's not too much trouble, could you double-check? I ask because I would like to use it in Chupacabra. -kotra (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The file was tagged with {{non-free television screenshot}} instead of the correct Texas tag... also, I'm not sure if a work by a Texas government employee would automatically be in the public domain. Definitely federal, but I doubt that even a few state governments have adopted the same policy. Either way, I've undeleted the image so you can sort it out (try the copyright help desk if you're still unsure). — east718 | talk | 03:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Undeletion was more than I'd hoped for. I'm researching the status of Texas government (including local government) copyright status, but it's slow going. Apparently works of the Florida government are usually public domain, but we don't have a similar article on Texas, so I guess I'll have to research the old-fashioned, non-lazy, actually reliable way (i.e. not Wikipedia). Or ask the copyright help desk, like you suggested. In the meantime, I'm using the fair use rationale, since it's valid while the image is used in an article. Thanks again! -kotra (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderlei Silva vs. Quinton Jackson

Hello,

I was wondering if we could discuss the recent edit you made to Silva/Jackson.

1)Why did you remove the images? I really think they did meet NFC#8 because if someone who hasn't seen Rampage in that position before won't really understand what he looked like. Also, like I said on the one from UFC 92, having the picture there really shows the exact power of the punch. I mean, look at the position of Silva's neck. I was wondering if we could establish some sort of consensus before you removed the images, because they've been there for a long time -- and Susumu is very generous with the redistribution of his images.

2)Infobox. I was told in the review that the infoboxes added "repetitive clutter" to the article, so I replaced it with the most recent. It's not the statistics of the fight. For example, there's nothing on there that tells the reader how many punches/takedowns were attempted in the fight. It's an review of each fighter, and I used the one from UFC 92 because 1)it's the most recent, and 2)it makes sense to give the reader such an overview at the very top of the article.

3)Thanks for the advice on bleacherreport.com / mma.fanhouse.com

I'm gonna revert your edit until we can establish a consensus of some sort, thanks. Bad intentionz (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple quick points:
  1. There are two gripes I have with the images... one is NFCC #8 - why is the image significant to the article? Why would somebody reading the article lose knowledge from the lack of the image? #1 is also relevant since the image is replaceable with text - you just described to me the vicious way that Rampage torqued Silva's neck. There's also the issue of minimal usage - three nonfree images generally too many on an article that doesn't deal specifically with those images. Maybe I'm being obtuse because it's late at night. Let me know if you disagree with my reasoning.
  2. My opinion is that leaving the table for the most recent match introduces inaccuracies with dates, recognitions, titles at stake, and weight. As for inertia, well, I could find only one article article with a similar template that covers multiple fights - Muhammad Ali versus Sonny Liston, and it looks like the author there agreed.
  3. No problem. :) — east718 | talk | 04:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey east, sorry I didn't get back to you earlier--I lost track of this conversation (only remembered when you removed the images lol). I will try to establish why these images should stay, and continue our discussion of the infoboxes once we can reach a closure to the images issue.
So the first image in Pride 28--as a MMA fan, I think you are aware that this fight is constantly being talked about how the knockout is one of the most or violent in history, etc. The article talks about that a lot too--but I think until a reader sees the image of Rampage hanging in the ropes like that, they don't quite get the "awe" of that fight. Also, I find that it's pretty difficult to paint the exact picture of Rampage with text. I mean, if we say Rampage falls into the ropes, with his head halfway out the ring, his body and legs inside, with blood pouring out of his face--that doesn't seem so efficient to me. If we just say "hanging in the ropes", what does that even mean? It's important to articulate his exact position because it's such a huge moment in the rivalry and MMA. I don't think anybody who has watched the fight can forget Rampage falling into the ropes like that. If the reader is missing that part of the rivalry, namely, the image of Rampage in the ropes, I really think it's a significant piece. Arguably, if that exact moment didn't happen, I'm not sure if people would argue that it was one of the most brutal matches in history. How could we replace a significant moment like that with text?
As for the UFC 92 photo, I think it's important because it shows exactly how powerful Rampage's punch is. For any odd reader, I think if we were just to say that the punch created a "torque", they wouldn't automatically relate that with the power. First, the lay person would probably have to wikilink to the definition of torque, then think about the way it is being applied in the article, and if they don't draw the proper conclusion--it would be detrimental to the article's understanding--because the article summarizes the three fights. However, if the reader takes one glance at the image, they will see that it was a very powerful punch because Silva was looking in an entirely different direction as a result of the punch.
Lastly, I want to make two general points. First is, let's not forget that MMA is a pretty multi-nation sport, so some readers of this article might not have the excellent English required to understand the Pride 28 and the UFC 92 photo if we were to attempt to describe it with text. I think it is very important to keep these kind of readers in mind. Finally, if you are not convinced with the arguments, perhaps the doctrine of wp:common sense could save the images. I think when Wikipedia created the NFCC, it had a pretty specific kind of content in mind. Those that were truly not free, like the ones you would find in MMAWeekly, Sherdog galleries, and to prevent the usage of those images unless truly necessary. However, Susumu readily permits the usage of his images, especially for a cause like Wikipedia (because it fits in exactly with the circumstances he outlined for usage)-- in a case like that I do not think the criteria needs to be applied as rigidly as being done here. Also, NFCC #8 appears to be a pretty disputed criteria, as evidenced by this lengthy debate. The NFCC states at the top that there are to be the odd exception when applying the policy, and please consider whether this is the case here. Thanks. Bad intentionz (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of the web-based personal financial management service "Wesabe"

Having read about Mint.com and Wesabe.com among other such services in Money magazine, I came to Wikipedia to learn more about them. I was surprised to find the article for Wasabe deleted and am curious as to why you have deleted it. Further investigation shows the website is sill up and operational, and they claim to have received positive coverage from a number of unrelated and reputable sources. (See: http://www.wesabe.com/page/news) Any of these citations could easily be vetted by Wikipedia editors/writers for accuracy. From this cursory investigation and the article in Money magazine, I can only assume that Wesabe is a legitimate operation (or pretends to be which would make a Wikipedia article even more relevant and necessary to alert potential customers to negative press which may exist). So, in the interest if independent personal research and informed decision making, why have you deleted this article? Could the article be reworked to meet Wikipedia's standards? Thanks, GTown1978 (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was actually located at Wesabe.com (not Wesabe) - you'll have to talk to Hu12 (talk · contribs) about it, since he was actually the administrator who performed the deletion. — east718 | talk | 04:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I'm new to the Wikipedia community. Can you please explain why your name was associated with the deletion on the page in question. (Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wesabe&action=edit&redlink=1_) Were you involved in/did you request it's deletion. If so, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GTown1978 (talk • contribs)

I wasn't involved in the article's deletion. Wesabe had no content, except for a redirect to Wesabe.com - this meant that anybody visiting the Wesabe page would be forwarded to Wesabe.com (much in the same way, for example, USA forwards people to United States). When Hu12 deleted Wesabe.com, this left a broken link over at Wesabe, which I cleaned up (you'll notice that my deletion is preceded by several hours by Hu12's deletion). — east718 | talk | 09:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:East718/Archive_22&oldid=1142982262"