User talk:RandomXYZb/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Please note that if you are leaving me a message about an article which I have deleted, please leave me a red link to the article to help me easily locate it and reply to your query.

If you can't edit this page then it's probably semi-protected against vandalism. Click here and leave me a message on that page instead.

Egads

Thats the first time two usernames I've reported were not valid. My apologies. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 10:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry Case

Thank you for making the correct assumption in this case, I made a mistake and assumed bad faith. The users email made it clear to me that he was not a sock puppet. Cheers! Mww113 (talk) 11:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I'm alerting you of this edit on Wales by Petitspois. I think this is likely to be a certain user using a sock to avoid 3RR again (as with user:Melvo which you banned). I'm suspicious of the editor's history (Wales, Hard Fi and a string of the band "Editors" diffs here) - the coincidence of a one-off edit happening on Wales with a unique editor with this particular history is just too unlikely imo. People are getting paranoid about IP's on British Isles too. This IP had an interest in Editors, Hard Fi and constituent country (an article central to the revert Petitspois is involved in). Footballers is another interest (the common interest is a few bands, 'UK countries' and footballers).This IP from Editors has an interest in re-naming Rep of Ireland as "Ireland" - another pursuit. Looking down the Editors line (though probably less important), this IP shows coincidentally-timed combined-interest band edits too, as does this one.

I can look at putting an appropriate page up if you would like, but I'd rather not get too involved as I've been too involved with the editor already. He is big on 'head-counting' consensus, and obviously any sock-using could disrupt this. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning 78.16.xx.xx. I looked on the British Isles Talk page and found this IP (78.16.126.36) - both it's comments are aimed at myself, with one about Wales not being a real country (a Wikipeire argument in Wales - but not particularly relevant for the British Isles page). It fits into line, but probably not strictly a law-break, as you say.

There are more-prevalent 78.19.xx.xx's on British Isles, but I know too little about IP's to know if the number is strictly 'in range'. 78.19.213.117 has trolled my Talk page in the section that I was commenting to Wikipeire, 78.19.238.101 has similar views, and both 78.19.55.51 and 78.19.204.211 have been in a 3RR dispute and reported me for 3RR'ing (I was actually confused by the IP's and was let off the hook, fortunately). 78.19.222.154 and Wikipedia have commented next to each other in British Isles Talk, backing each other up. 78.19.13.108 has asked me an unusual (and out of the blue) question about Wales and Anglesey in British Isles - where the debate is typically about Ireland. I accept that '78.19.xx.xx' could reasonably easily be someone else (the nature of the debate), but I thought it's worth the note as significant factors are there. The 3RR should interest you if there was a 'number link'.--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this may seem odd. But I believe User:Matt Lewis is the sock pupper master behind this account. The user has had arguments with me before and has insulted me many times. (I can get diffs if you like). This may be a first, but I think he may have setup the account and edited some pages I have edited in the past to make it look like a sock puppet of mine. So essentially I think he tried to frame me to try and get me pernamently banned. I haven't got any proof it was him, but I find it highly suspicious that it was him, an editor with a previous history with me, who has "spotted" a sock puppet "of mine". I think you should leave him a message about it.WikipÉire ^♣ 13:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record I'm more than happy to be checked. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Well, one of you thinks its the other, the other thinks its the one. How about this - if Petitspois doesn't edit again, then all well and good. If it does, then I'll file a CU, and whoever is found to be operating the account (assuming someone is) will get blocked accordingly. _GB^T/C 11:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Surely you mean "says" it's the other, though, rather than "thinks". I can't see any evidence that it could be me: User:Petitspois' edits go back 3 weeks on topics I've not been involved in (which are Wikipeire's rather idiosyncratic interests, not mine). User:Petitspois has been used in Wales in exactly the same way User:Melvo was - if it's not him imo, it must be someone 'framing' him (but how could that work beyond checks being made?). I very much doubt we'll be seeing Petitspois used again now - the problem here for me is the continuing use of new sockpuppets, and esp the IP usage. Were any of the IP addresses I detailed above interesting? --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"Says"..."thinks"...don't read too much into that. The IP range 78.16.0.0 to 78.19.255.255 resolves to Ireland, but I can't get a specific look up of the individual addressed being used to determine if, for example, they're all coming from the same ISP. Let's see what Wikipeire reckons to my earlier post. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 13:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is the specific ealier post - the one in his talk or about using petitspois? I'm not sure why he would comment any more now - there's nothing he can really say other than that it's someone or me 'framing' him in some way (which he has said of course). I'm happy to be checked on it, or on anything. Petitspois is surely a 'clear-cut' case, as are at least some of those IPs. Nearly all of them I would class as 'highly' suspicious - and they don't make much sense by themselves. Only one or two of them I would say are speculative. Which is the easiest route? I don't mind putting him on the list to be 'checked' (? - I'll look into it properly and 'lay it out' if I have to), but I don't want to intefere with any other process. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The one about using petitspois. I think I'm tending to agree with you on the IPs, having looked at it a little more, but don't have the time to look in greater detail at this stage. Hopefully I'll be able to take a more indepth look tomorrow - I think it may end up in a checkuser in any event... _GB^T/C 18:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you think? I don't mind filing a report based on the above if you don't have the time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I reformatted the above as a checkuser report, having considered your comment and all the IPs involved. Looks like it had a positive result, and is closed. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikipéire's IP is back - is this comment by him true?

Hi. User:Wikipéire's 78.16.xx.xx IP is back and reverting the Wikipéire user page. Is this edit comment by him true? He claims he can do it all day. His edit is not hugely disruptive, but does pose this question: as he does not have a "banned" tag - does "blocked indefinitely" amount to the same thing, or can he use his IP?--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Annett

Just thought to give you a heads up that Mr. Annett issued a legal threat [1], contrary to Wikipedia:No legal threats.

You said to use talk page as an avenue for change. I told him to find sources to back up claims he made (or at least not to remove those which are sourced), but not only did he failed to do so, he simply accused everyone who edited the article is biased against him within 48 hours of the massive deletion.

I won't say "I told you so" but I told you so back to you - it's not his first time editing (despite his claims of innocence) and in so far that I can see, he has no intention to finding sources but instead, just trying to steer the article away from NPOV.

(Mind you I warned him about not posting legal threats just 30 hours before he actually made the post on Talk:KA page)

--Cahk (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

Please forgive me, that was an accident. I was referring to another edit. FlagFreak (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PlayStation 3 semi-protection

I wanted to say thanks for protecting it. ummmm.... if you don't think it'd be a problem, I think it might me a good idea to indef protect because I can't see it ever not being subject to a ton of vandalism otherwise. If you don't want to indef it, I'd appreciate it if you would extend the semi until at least June 25 because what is arguably the biggest exclusive game for the PS3 this year, Metal Gear Solid 4, comes out on June 12 and I can't even imagine the levels of vandalism that would be on that page in the days following the game's release. (More visibility = more vandalism) Thanks. Thingg^⊕⊗ 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

help!

hello! i'm new to wikipedia.

i just signed up a gallery profile for an art gallery where a list of indonesian comtemporary artists and information will be linked from there. i intend to write articles on each of these artists and their works after i am done with the gallery profile. why was it deleted twice? how should i avoid getting deleted? and how do i categorise my article and ensure that it does not get deleted? i really want to contribute articles on indonesian contemporary arts scene in singapore.

'(

-gajahgallery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gajahgallery (talk • contribs) 08:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

you're stupid

as stated above, you are stupid for defending that fag treelo, so i logic you too are a fag. thank you. TonyGanton46 (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Why delate a page on a Think tank?

I am trying to create a page on my organization, a famous Think Tank in IT industries. This first page was delated as soon as created? Could you tell me why? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jean_sunday&action=submit (page in progress) - my organization is www.idate.org

Deletion

I read your deletion comments about the page I created. I thought that the article ( Rodon Group ) did in fact state why the company was noteworthy, or unique. Please message me with any information that my help me get the page back up. I appreciate your help, Thanks Mlavoritano (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What changes should I make to help this article? I have already found some references and verifications, as well as more information to avoid the A7 issues. I am unsure what the next steps are, and would appreciate greatly some help in getting the article back up. Thank you. Mlavoritano (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your vigilance

Thanks for continuing to keep an eye on the "ACTDEC"-related articles -- and acting. --Orlady (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See Special:Contributions/Teflwatcher1 --Orlady (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Freije page

Freije What do I need to do to make this an acceptable site? I have seen at least one other company site without references. I'm just not sure what to do to fix the problem. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejierfretaw (talk • contribs) 18:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Can you accept an apollegy?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditsy5154 (talk • contribs)

I don't know how to create good articles. I didn't read the crap when I signed up. No one does! But I can leave the man alone.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DItsy5154 (talk • contribs)

Re: Something...

[2] - Vad? (What?) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Scribble Wiki

The page is under construction. I havent finished it yet. MillionaireMan (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Garrett Raffanelli

Why did you delete this article? It was being discussed. Garrett.Graff (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly understand your position however there is no explanation on Wikipedia that the prize mentioned does or doesn't merit the person's inclusion. The article was also being rapidly updated with other points of notability. Garrett.Graff (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

He has not released an official album yet however he has released songs, he is only 18 years old. So you're the sole authority to determine what is and is not sufficiently notable to make a competition major or not? I would say that making it through any amount of entries to win any competition is worth notability especially from an organization so dynamic as Shadowville. Also being notable as an actor in the Tribute to Abba. Garrett.Graff (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"it's probably not unreasonable to assume", I'm sure you already know what they say about assuming, because in this case it is not me. Note my username is "Garrett Graff", my real name, and the article is about "Garrett Raffanelli", a musician from Northern Nevada, so there is no conflict of interest. I would rather meet you half way, return the article as it was and determine via discussion page whether or not there is sufficient notability. Garrett.Graff (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"An interesting coincidence"? Garrett Raffanelli Garrett Graff, just in case you didn't think I was being totally honest ;). As for deletion review I will submit the request and also petition Wikipedia to review your administrative status. Garrett.Graff (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

"If a user thinks an administrator has acted improperly against them or another editor, they should express their concerns directly to the administrator responsible and try to come to a resolution in an orderly and civil manner. However, if the matter is not resolved between the two parties, users can take further action (see Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution). For more possibilities, see Requests for comment/User conduct: Use of administrator privileges and Administrator's noticeboard: Incidents" WP:Administrators Garrett.Graff (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrett.Graff (talk • contribs)

User:Tenteisai

After you blocked User:Tenteisai on the 8th... apart from deleting your block message, his first edit after coming back yesterday was to delete the same talk page content that got him blocked before. As before, he blocked it from User:99.132.177.200 --David from Downunder (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Noted, but I don't think there's enough disruption at the moment to merit any further action. Thanks for the heads up, though - I'll keep an eye on things. _GB^T/C 07:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Senso Ryū Aikijūjutsu when you have a chance? Thanks! jmcw (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I just warned User:99.132.177.200 for calling other editors "goofs" and "fuck tards". This editor is very disruptive: rarely signs comments; rarely adds edit summary; disregards Wikipedia policies. --David from Downunder (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about the url in the speedy delete. I'm an inclusionist: this was my first speedy delete<g>. jmcw (talk) 11:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested... I did make a backup of the bulletin board web page with the material in question ( dated 2007). The wiki article was started in March 2008 with a direct copy from the bulletin board. In any case, I'll save it for the PROD and AFD<g>. jmcw (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes these small, modern martial arts topics turn into something interesting ( like Okuno Ryu). The Richard Behrens material is interesting but there are really no sources on the internet. This article is about a un-notable successor to interesting man - it will be AFDed sooner or later. jmcw (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Article Deleted

I thought the article I wrote about my fomer professor Diego Archer was great. It is very noteworthy as his theory of "conflict ownership" has been used in several inetrnational tribunals, including the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL. I tried to make it personable so it would be interseting instead of only focusing on the thoery but you can see how much we wrote on the thoery under the Sierra Leone context.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoarcher (talk • contribs)

I understand. I used this user name as I only logged in to write the article. I really dont plan to continue in Wikipedia. Currenlty we are using the thoery on the International Court of Justice for the implementation of a the new criteria for international crimes. This includes the criteria we used to train the Judges in the Saddam Hussein trials. Since my professor came with it I was trying to make it more public outside the legal world so that the when the impact is made all credit goes to the person who made it and not to the politiocal system in the ICJ.

Do you suggest I write only the article about the thoery itself? If so please foward me the material we worte tonight so we don't loose it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoarcher (talk • contribs)

I added my e-mail. I will not get spam right? The theory is not reaserach it was already applied several times and is a factual issue. The Article will be smaller. Also I reference the papers where the thoery is mentioned but I put links for the web. based on your policy would it be better just to mention the papaers and no web links to them?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoarcher (talk • contribs)

Why is this article David Archer published (I see absolutely no meaning or importance on this "In his 5 seasons in the CFL he completed 1388 of 2434 passes (57%) for 20671 yards with 71 interceptions and 120 touchdown passes.???" and my professor has a theory that is applied by the ICJ, ICTY and ICTR and it cannot be published?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoarcher (talk • contribs)

Ok got it about the comments. I am Alexia by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegoarcher (talk • contribs) 08:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

So if I write about my professor when he won the gold medal nationals on college track and field (lateral jump) back in 1996 in Cleveland. That is publishable?

I just fin it really interesting that this guy David Archer practicalyl did nothing significant for this world (I eman he played for NFL temas but was a back-up or soemthing as I can see from the read) so bad he only ahs one parragraph. On the other hand we have Professor Archer who wrote the theory of Conflict Ownership wich was used in 4 different tribunals and the preparation of the Saddam Hussein judges. The thory was used to prosecute Charles Taylor in teh Sierra Leone conflict as I mentioned in the article I wrote about him. Charles taylor was avoiding the tribunal jursidction adn if it wasn't for the thoery he would not had been indicted. So this has historical context, BUT is not publishable. However David Archer sitting down on a football bench is. Diegoarcher (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree? Diegoarcher (talk) 08:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, what if I change teh article and just put creator of "conflict ownership" doctrine and put the references of all the judegs resolutions and trials?Diegoarcher (talk) 08:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yunek

I am trying to understand how my article on Yunek was deleted stating that article had the inappropriate pages. Yunek is a gospel artist who is nominated for 2009 Stellar Gospel Music awards. She is very noteworthy and has a large fanbase. She would be included here just as other noted Gospel artists have been. MusicMovesMe (talk) 07:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand how my article on Yunek was deleted stating that article had the inappropriate pages. Yunek is a gospel artist who is nominated for 2009 Stellar Gospel Music awards. She is very noteworthy and has a large fanbase. She would be included here just as other noted Gospel artists have been.MusicMovesMe (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I know - I've already answered your question on your talk page. _GB^T/C 08:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand how my article on Yunek was deleted stating that article had the inappropriate pages. Yunek is a gospel artist who is nominated for 2009 Stellar Gospel Music awards. She is very noteworthy and has a large fanbase. She would be included here just as other noted Gospel artists have been.MusicMovesMe (talk) 08:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

The album was actually released in September 2007 on a large scale underground, but will be released main stream in stores June 24th of this year. The album is already registered and scanning on Soundscan. Also her single is #7 on XM Radio and playing on the following stations Now playing on Praise 100.9 in Charlotte, Praise 104.1 in DC, KTOY, XM Satellite Radio, WCAO in Baltimore, WCLK in Atlanta, KWWJ in Houston, WALR in Atlanta, WERQ in Nashville, WTST Nashville, WALR in Atlanta, KAZI in Austin, KHVN in Dallas, WJLB in Detroit, WNYU in New York, KGGR in Dallas, WUFO in Buffalo, KTLV in OKLAHOMA CITY, WMTR in New Jersey, WNAP in Philly, WAMO in Philly, WGBN in Pittsburgh, WAIC in Springfield, Ju Joyner' Show, WGGM in Richmond, WREJ in Richmond, WFMI in Virginia Beach, WAUG in Raleigh/Durham, WGIV in Charlotte, WRSC in Raleigh/Durham, WMBM in Miami, WTHB in Augusta, WLOR in Huntsville, WXIV in Montgomery, WNSG in Nashville, KGGR in Dallas, KNON in Dallas, KROI in Houston, KTSU in Houston, KTOY in Texarkana, KPZK in Little Rock, WOAD in Jackson, WXOK in Baton Rouge, KOKA in Shreveport, WPGR in Pittsburgh, WGRB in Chicago, WYCA in Chicago, WMCS in Milwaukee, Rejoice, SGN "The Light", and Inspirations Across America!

Her notariety on both the Holy Hip Hop and Gospel Music scenes should provide her creditbility. She was a semi finalist for the Gospel Dream Showcase, Yunēk was recognized by the Houston Chronicle as one of the most talented female audio engineers in the music business. She is currently filming a Reality Show for airing on the Gospel Music Channel. The Radio Single Got Fruit was also released On Gospel Mix which was a Top Seller in Walmart Gospel Section for 2007.MusicMovesMe (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Satissfies the following

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] Houston Chronicle as one of the most talented female audio engineers in the music business. The Houston Chronicle is the newspaper for the greater Houston area and approched Yunek for the interviewing for the article once she gained recognition in the city. The story covered her work as a producer and engineer and noted her work in the industry.

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. (so far)Peaked at #61 on Radio and Records (BDS) Gospel music charts.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Semi Finalist in Gospel Dream Showcase and HONORED at the ALL EYES ON ME HOLY HIP HOP ACHEIVEMENT AWARDS

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show BOBBY JONES GOSPEL IS AIRED ON BET and THE WORD NETWORK or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. GOSPEL MIX is a compilation ablum which gained status of one of WALMARTS top sellers in GOSPEL section.

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. the radio list I provided earlier are all NATIONAL BDS and MEDIAGUIDE used by ASCAP stations. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. RADIO ONE CHARLOTTE,NC and RADIO ONE HOUSTON -KROI have dedicated hour long shows to interviewing and noting the accomplishments of YUNEKMusicMovesMe (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Satissfies the following

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] Houston Chronicle as one of the most talented female audio engineers in the music business. The Houston Chronicle is the newspaper for the greater Houston area and approched Yunek for the interviewing for the article once she gained recognition in the city. The story covered her work as a producer and engineer and noted her work in the industry.

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. (so far)Peaked at #61 on Radio and Records (BDS) Gospel music charts.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Semi Finalist in Gospel Dream Showcase and HONORED at the ALL EYES ON ME HOLY HIP HOP ACHEIVEMENT AWARDS Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show BOBBY JONES GOSPEL IS AIRED ON BET and THE WORD NETWORK or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. GOSPEL MIX is a compilation ablum which gained status of one of WALMARTS top sellers in GOSPEL section. Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. the radio list I provided earlier are all NATIONAL BDS and MEDIAGUIDE used by ASCAP stations. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. RADIO ONE CHARLOTTE,NC and RADIO ONE HOUSTON -KROI have dedicated hour long shows to interviewing and noting the accomplishments of YUNEKMusicMovesMe (talk) 09:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] Houston Chronicle as one of the most talented female audio engineers in the music business. The Houston Chronicle is the newspaper for the greater Houston area and approched Yunek for the interviewing for the article once she gained recognition in the city. The story covered her work as a producer and engineer and noted her work in the industry.

(1) Multiple, not just one. (2) It needs to be cited - it's not enough to say so, you have to link to a reliable source evidencing the claim. (3) The text is a copyright infringement of http://cdbaby.com/cd/yunekstyles. This is not copyright infrigement on CD BABY as this is YUNEK's CD BABY ACCOUNT! She is the one who had her publicist to post the BIO on the CD BABY SITE! Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. (so far)Peaked at #61 on Radio and Records (BDS) Gospel music charts.

Nowhere in the article as it stood was that asserted.

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Again, that's not asserted. She's a gospel singer...she's not the most prominent representative of that style or her city.

Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Semi Finalist in Gospel Dream Showcase and HONORED at the ALL EYES ON ME HOLY HIP HOP ACHEIVEMENT AWARDS

I would say that those don't constitute major music awards on the level of those cited in the examples. Just because you don't consider those avenues major music awards, doesn't mean that they are not major awards to those on the GOSPEL MUSIC sector.

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show BOBBY JONES GOSPEL IS AIRED ON BET and THE WORD NETWORK or notable film

That's not what the criteria is getting at - mere television appearances don't count.

inclusion on a compilation album, etc. GOSPEL MIX is a compilation ablum which gained status of one of WALMARTS top sellers in GOSPEL section.

Again, where is that asserted in the article as it stood?

Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. the radio list I provided earlier are all NATIONAL BDS and MEDIAGUIDE used by ASCAP stations.

Emphasis on the word "major". and again, none of that was asserted or evidence. BDS stations are MAJOR P1 and P2 stations. You should research BDS as it is the owner of BILLBOARD.

Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. RADIO ONE CHARLOTTE,NC and RADIO ONE HOUSTON -KROI have dedicated hour long shows to interviewing and noting the accomplishments of YUNEKMusicMovesMe (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, where is that asserted in the article as it stood? The article wasn't done being edited as you deleted it before I could get back to view the page! I can go back in and re-edit and assert the pertinent information if the page was posted.

I think the key thing that you may be missing is that notability must be asserted, and must be evidence by reliable sources. Are you able to find reliable, independent, third party sources for that which you're claiming above? _GB^T/C 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

also the criteria states = is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria and I've provided evidence of several of those. I can link to the Chronicle article, you can pull BDS reports if need be. You can view her information on KOCH Distribution's website as they are the a HUGE music Distributor distributing all sectors of MUSIC including your named secular artists. MusicMovesMe (talk) 10:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC) The criteria It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable.[1] Houston Chronicle as one of the most talented female audio engineers in the music business. The Houston Chronicle is the newspaper for the greater Houston area and approched Yunek for the interviewing for the article once she gained recognition in the city. The story covered her work as a producer and engineer and noted her work in the industry.

(1) Multiple, not just one. (2) It needs to be cited - it's not enough to say so, you have to link to a reliable source evidencing the claim. (3) The text is a copyright infringement of http://cdbaby.com/cd/yunekstyles. This is not copyright infrigement on CD BABY as this is YUNEK's CD BABY ACCOUNT! She is the one who had her publicist to post the BIO on the CD BABY SITE! Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. (so far)Peaked at #61 on Radio and Records (BDS) Gospel music charts. Nowhere in the article as it stood was that asserted. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

Again, that's not asserted. She's a gospel singer...she's not the most prominent representative of that style or her city. Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury or Grammis award. Has won or placed in a major music competition. Semi Finalist in Gospel Dream Showcase and HONORED at the ALL EYES ON ME HOLY HIP HOP ACHEIVEMENT AWARDS

I would say that those don't constitute major music awards on the level of those cited in the examples. Just because you don't consider those avenues major music awards, doesn't mean that they are not major awards to those on the GOSPEL MUSIC sector. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show BOBBY JONES GOSPEL IS AIRED ON BET and THE WORD NETWORK or notable film

That's not what the criteria is getting at - mere television appearances don't count. inclusion on a compilation album, etc. GOSPEL MIX is a compilation ablum which gained status of one of WALMARTS top sellers in GOSPEL section.

Again, where is that asserted in the article as it stood? Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. the radio list I provided earlier are all NATIONAL BDS and MEDIAGUIDE used by ASCAP stations.

Emphasis on the word "major". and again, none of that was asserted or evidence. BDS stations are MAJOR P1 and P2 stations. You should research BDS as it is the owner of BILLBOARD. Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. RADIO ONE CHARLOTTE,NC and RADIO ONE HOUSTON -KROI have dedicated hour long shows to interviewing and noting the accomplishments of YUNEKMusicMovesMe (talk) 09:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, where is that asserted in the article as it stood? The article wasn't done being edited as you deleted it before I could get back to view the page! I can go back in and re-edit and assert the pertinent information if the page was posted. I think the key thing that you may be missing is that notability must be asserted, and must be evidence by reliable sources. Are you able to find reliable, independent, third party sources for that which you're claiming above? GBT/C 09:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

also the criteria states = is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria and I've provided evidence of several of those. I can link to the Chronicle article, you can pull BDS reports if need be. You can view her information on KOCH Distribution's website as they are the a HUGE music Distributor distributing all sectors of MUSIC including your named secular artists.MusicMovesMe (talk) 10:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Forest Laboratories

I have added a hangon to Talk:Forest Pharmaceuticals Firstrx (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I need you to look up Novartis, Merck & Co. and any other pharma comany you like and tell me why you deleted Forest Pharmaceuticals for "blatant advertising as a brand new article. I think a mistake has been made on your part and it needs to be reinstated. This is clearly a real company. I suggest you google it if your are unsure. Firstrx (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly it is a notable company. The article needs to be expanded. There are hundreds of pharmaceutical companies. Notability can be put into question without deleting it. You need to research the company before questioning its notability. It needs to be reinstated. Firstrx (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your problem is, seriously, you seem to now have a vendetta against me. Sometime other can be right and you can be wrong, it's just that simple. Why should a company who has multiple products on wiki, be itself deleted?? How does that make sense?? This is not advertisement...it is a fact about a real pharmaceutical company. Firstrx (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately I see that Forest Laboratories is already listed on wiki. Since these are one in the same, it appears as all you did was abuse your power and waste our time. I will edit there. I do hoper for the sake of wiki you were a kinder person who didn't think everyone on here is trying to exploit something. I assume you have had some bad experiences on wiki and therefore you assume the worst in everyone. 'Tis ashame. Peace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstrx (talk • contribs) 09:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently it does warrent inclusion, under Forest Laboratories. Many people I see have edited it and nobody has attacked its noteworthyness. Most likely because it is in fact notable. You appear to be the only person taking issue here. That is ashame. I would assume any action on your part taken against Forest Laboratories would then indeed look like a vendetta against me, but only time will tell. Firstrx (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line...you didn't want he article there and you gave me or anyone else NO time to clean it up. I would not be so fast to talk about a "high horse" my friend. You said the company was not worthy of inclusion, yet there it is on wiki already. I'm sorry you were backed into a corner and now have to come out swinging. A little humility on your part would go a long way...however I won't hold my breath. Adios. Firstrx (talk) 09:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I have said all I will on the subject. I expect you to behave properly and as an admin. is "expected" to act. Any further contact from you on the subject will be considered harassment. Firstrx (talk)

09:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Timtiny23

Hi, I see that you seem to be the one who has blocked the user who keeps using multiple accounts to evade a block for POV pushing. They are back again under the account User:Timtiny23 using the same edit summary style and same edits on Global English UK, and just wondering if you could have a look into it? Thanks.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:08, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I must admit I know little of the topic. I only have it in my watchlist because of the POV edits that keep appearing on it! Thanks again. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Any Information or Help Please

I am writing again seeking help in getting my recently deleted article back up and am hoping that you can help me do so. Please message me on my talk page and let me know what steps I should take and what changes are required. I have already devoted time to revising content to avoid the A7 issues. Thanks Mark Mlavoritano (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response - unfortunately the comments from the other administrator were for a different page than the one deleted by you. The page in quesiton, Rodon Group, was cited by you for not being signicant or noteworthy, not for spam. As such, I have worked to develop more information and sources to help get the page back up. The other page, as referenced on my talk page, does need significant work, and i recognize that. However, I feel the Rodon page warrants review. Thanks again for your response - Looking forward to any insight on how to get Rodon back up. Mlavoritano (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. My only question is how do I add sources and information to the article once it has been deleted? Should I repost it, or work through you to get the content back up for editing? Thanks again. Mlavoritano (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Beastieboysfan

Thanks, he and I have been having a back and forth editing going for about 4 or 5 months now. So it's nice to have "help". - Spyke1077 (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the East Coast of the United States, so its 4:06 PM right now. Also, while the discussion page incident was a problem, I just wanted to point out (since you said you didnt notice at first) is that he tampered with the cover art. The cover is supposed to have the World Trade Center towers on it. And then I changed it, wrote on the discussion page about it. Ever since, he's replaced the picture and blanked the discussion page. Thanks so much for helping me out with this. - Spyke1077 (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Qj67

You deleted the page for blatant advertising. He's recreated it; can you pull up a log of the deleted page so i can see if he's simply put up the same material? thanks. Ironholds (talk) 00:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Yunek

I'll begin working on the edits tonight! THXMusicMovesMe (talk) 03:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: WFME conflict of interest

Did you read the edits before assuming a conflict of interest existed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfmefamilyradio (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

IIPM

Regarding the warning you left on my talk page. If you see the IIPM talk page you will see I am trying to start a discussion, but the white-washers are not responding. They are also placing fake edit-lock tags to make their faje version stick. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit-lock. This page was under an edit-lock for almost a year, because one side refuses to discuss differences (you can check the discussion section). Your lock expires on June 3rd. They will be back and start edit-warring. Their whole purpose is to keep edit-warring and play the odds that their version will be the one that sticks due to an edit-lock. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I second Makrandjoshi's comments.

As soon as the protection you placed expired, yet another sockpuppet of indef blocked User:Sonu1008, now called User:Sonu-nn resumed the revert war. Please re-protect the article until someone posts a legitimate request to unprottect it on WP:RFPP. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Done whilst I was away. _GB^T/C 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Daynal

A follow up on this closed sock-puppet block - could you look over this proposal for unblocking? I know you are on a wikibreak, but if you happen to stop by, I would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Pastordavid (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't really have much of a view, to be honest - my involvement was primarily limited to actioning the sockpuppetry case. _GB^T/C 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Beastieboysfan

Hey, I know youre on Wikibreak, but I thought i'd let you know that User:Beastieboysfan struck again. I have reverted the edit. -- Spyke1077 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Noted. _GB^T/C 20:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

DRV heads up

Hello, someone unfamiliar with wikiredtape has nominated an article you speedily deleted at DRV, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_4#Rod_Underhill. Thought you'd like to know. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted - I've closed and restored the article in the face of consensus that my decision was, perhaps, hasty. I think it's still prodable, though, particular given the overwhelming COI that appears to exist. _GB^T/C 09:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for removing the vandalism to my page. Much appreciated, and happy editing, Leonard^(Bloom) 19:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Bwfguy

I think user:Bwfguy isn't MascotGuy, so I would suggest waiting for him to do something in mainspace again, under a don't bite the newbies ethic. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Well, okay. One could make the case that he is using his userpage to experiment with making tables before setting out to improve the encyclopedia. Maybe he doesn't know how to make a personal sandbox? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Thank you for getting back to me so quickly. I checked on Wikipedia and found that one of our competitors, Interactive Data Corporation has a page on the site describing their service.

The name of our company is XSP (Xcitek Solutions Plus, LLC) we are looking in New York City. Our website is www.xsp.com Please contact me if you need further information our company and if there is any further information on our company that you would need so we would be able to post a page on the site.

Thank you very much. MelissaXSP6800 (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Laurion is a Beauty pageant contestant, more in fo will come!!! wait.

I am making the article, Catherine Laurion is a Beauty pageant contestant and is expected to come out in Miss USA 2009 or 2010 why are you deleting it sources are coming I am going to have to contact another admini. If you keep on deleting it!

Reply

Thanks! I changed the sig.--I Am The Great Editor in Chief (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Catherine Laurion

I am sorry for being rude to you about the Catherine Laurion Article I should have read the rules before creating it, sorry, God Bless You, and Best Wishes! MountCan (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jim Posac

Hey,

In regards to the Jim Posac article that you have deleted on the grounds that it is a meaningless article, I fail to see how this is true. Sure Jim Posac may not mean anything to most of the world, but to a teenage boy and his family, Jim Posac means a whole lot. There are an almost infinite number of Wikipedia articles out there, a lot of which mean even less to anyone. Please understand and let the Jim Posac article stand. If it's violating any rules or something, please let me know and I'll be more than happy to alter the article, but if you're really deleting it on the grounds that it's pointless, that is truly not the case. Thank you very much for reading this, and please, let Jim Posac live on within the walls of Wikipedia, and I'm still new to Wikipedia, so I'm not sure how to leave a link in read, but the Jim Posac article is found at [3]. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanmacq (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Amoungerror33234 &c

User:Amoungerror33234, User:Smilesnew55, User:Doneheads55 will doubtless set up another sock puppet and carry on like this all day. Is there any way you trace the Ip address and block account creation for a while? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 12:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point

Thanks for bringing that up to me:-) We can learn from mistakes, and if a mistake is never brought to your attention, you won't learn from it;-) I fully agree with your point. When I was a newbie I thought that by blanking a page you deleted it. I really need to remember what it's like to be a newbie:-( It's sometimes hard to remember what it's like to be new when you've been here for pretty close to two years. Have a nice day!--SJP _Chat 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

SJP _Chat has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User talk:SmiJO13 unblock request

Hello. I've reviewed the unblock request of that user and I can't really see anything that would warrant an indefinite block. It appears he did not create the two hoax articles Scrotima and The FLOW Devil that appear in his deleted contributions. Rather, it seems he (ineptly) attempted to get the first deleted and attempted to (somewhat disruptively) save the other from deletion because he believed it to be a notable urban legend. He did attempt to get another crap article deleted: [4]. On the whole, not a great asset to Wikipedia, but not a clear indef block either. Would you consider unblocking him?  Sandstein  18:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Gb. Thanks for removing the previous entry I'd made under the "noop" category. You were very generous removing it under the assumption of "good faith, but inappropriate", but after a suprisingly restless night I now have to confess it was not in good faith at all - it was untrue, a joke entry - and I apologise for this. I had previously thought of wikipedia as a good reference but certainly not to be trusted as factual without other refeneces, and assumed everyone else knew that, and so did not take contributing to it seriously. But, and this bit might sound a bit crazy, I find God (as in Jesus!) puts is finger on your conscience when you 'fall down' (again!) in the right/wrong department, and has done so on this occasion - hence the apology. I guess regardless of its reliability I should not be contributing to any falsehood on wikipedia (or elsewhere for that matter) that may mislead someone. So, sorry again mate, thanks for your actions and thanks to God as well for helping me out once again! I'll understand any action you now have to take with my account. See ya. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickGWiki (talk • contribs) 18:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Hey there! The "speedy tag" on my user page is not a real template, it doesn't add me to the speedy deletion candidates category. My user page was subject to vandalism and a real speedy tag was added by a malicious and ill-intended user, and this has been removed. I am well aware that real speedy deletion tags should not be added to user pages as a joke. Hope I've cleared that up. Todor→Bozhinov 11:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent Deletion

Hello, I was wondering why Foodio54 is not considered notable, when it has multiple serious publication references (Seattle Times, NY Post, UK Guardian, National Restaurant Association) and is the first local search company to employ collaborative filtering. From the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP it says "multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." The other person who was trying to delete this said the Foodio54 article didn't have enough notable content, but then why are Zagat or Fodors acceptable? It seems like instead of deleting an article as soon as it's put up that the article should be worked on to add additional interesting and notable content. Mvanheyde (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Random trolling of the day

i hate u —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironj221 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Userpage-notice

Hey, apparently the box you use instead of {{userpage}} is broken. I did not fix it because I thought you might have a reason to build your own instead of using aforementioned template but you might want to fix it. So#Why 12:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, can you move "Pretty Fly (For a White Guy)" to "Pretty Fly (for a White Guy)"?

Thanks. OffsBlink (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The Zodiac

I noticed you deleted The Zodiac, which seems extremely harsh though I probably know what reasons you will give. However, my main point is not that - it is to ask how the text of that deleted article can be re-accessed in order that it can be incorporated - with suitable references, justification, etc etc - within the Cosmic Sounds article. There can be no question whatsoever in my mind that the Zodiac: Cosmic Sounds project was notable in music terms and in the careers of some of its musicians, and it is possible to put together a clear justification for that with the right material - but I have raised questions in the past about why it needed two separate articles, which your actions seem to have addressed, if a tad brutally. The reason it probably wasn't improved in the past was that it hadn't reached the top of anyone's priority list - now, it will do. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Blimey that was quick! Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've reconstituted / rewritten it here - not perfect by a long chalk, but I'm sure it should meet your criteria. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yardbarker

I noticed you deleted the article Yardbarker, which is fine if my talk entry petitioning to save it was not read. Anyway is it possible for you to send to me the content that I did write so I can continue to refine it before reposting it on Wikipedia. We are a business in Emeryville and for us to not have a web presence on Wikipedia just seems bush league :) This was my first time using wikipedia and I did not realize if you write an article and it is removed it is not archived anywhere.

Thanks Pelechati (talk) 9:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Emailed to you as requested. Please note that Wikipedia isn't for promotion, and there are strict notability criteria which govern inclusion (leaving aside the fact that are it's your company you have an inherent conflict of interest. If your company is that notable then just leave it - in time someone will write a non-COI, non-promotional article about it. _GB^T/C 17:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there's nothing to say that an article cannot be deleted even if the hangon tag has been placed and justification for its being kept posted to the talk page. I did, in fact, read the talk page, but nothing there gave me any reason to think that the article wasn't suitable for speedy deletion under the relevant criteria. Thanks. _GB^T/C 20:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Usercreate

I didn't get a conflict at all; that's quite bizarre. Wonder why it made a whole new request where it did? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way works; I was considering doing mine as well, as your decline was simpler and clearer. I've declined speedies that were subsequently deleted before they cleared out of the CSD category, but this is the first time I've helped double-decline someone! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Autoblock

FYI: You did it correctly. Thanks. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice Quotes Section!

Thanks for adding me, the reliance on tools like that actually bothers me. I mean, I use pop ups sometimes, but I'm not here to criticize me. See you around, Beam 17:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User:Gb/Anvil

Sure thing, but would you mind giving me a copy of it? I would like to watchlist a number of this pages. You can send it via e-mail if you want, or just restore it in your userspace for a short while. Thanks, Amalthea (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm heading out for a long weekend shortly: If you're uncomfortable having it in your own userspace till monday, just e-mail it to me please. :)
Cheers, Amalthea (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Still here for a bit, and thanks, I got it — feel free to delete it again.
Now I wonder if I need to delve into the next sockpuppetry case based on this comment, or if I just wait and see if he has enough with the block. At the moment I'm suspecting User:SaqibChaudhry, User:Unitedequipment, User:Adnanpakistan and whoever worked on Al Tayyeb Group. If you feel like it, maybe you could look into the plethora of deleted contributions there to look for additional accounts? :)
This one's more a story of hoaxes or extreme WP:CRYSTAL or extreme non-notability, mixed with a couple of seemingly good edits. See User talk:Amalthea#ePost, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Click2Mail and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaudhry Akbar Ebrahim for some info.
Don't feel obligated though, I imagine you're still drained from the last one. --Amalthea (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

TEFL Links

Agreed that the TEFL links are highly abused; but what makes you decide that a link to a good TESL wiki should not be allowed whilst other links are? The wiki is not commercial as such; it offers a LOT of free information on all aspects of TESL and is run by a training organisation. That information is free for all; it is not only for registered users.

Meanwhile you don't seem to complain about poorly designed sites with far less free content which are also linked to from the same article.

What is your rationale for this? The wiki site is extremely popular on the web and you have decided it's commercial and therefore not allowed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 10:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do your research you'll find that the site you quote was taken over by ICAL and the link removed. Hardly a "cunning" redirect.

Can you answer the question I asked before - why do you choose to remove the link I make rather than other links? It is no more or less commercial than most other links and has far superior content than most other links. And the other question you ignored: what is your rationale here? Why remove useful links and leave poor links behind? Which is better in the long run for the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 14:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

ICAL

So, GB, you managed to get the ICAL page deleted. I expect you're feeling very pleased with yourself.

But tell me this - you admitted the page wasn't wrong in being about an online provider. So it was lack of notability which did it. Then explain this to me: where is the notability in [| this page]?

If I copy the layout and style of this article but make it relevant to ICAL I can only assume that it will be fine for Wikipedia. Let me know if this is the case or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 07:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So if the concept and layout of the above school is replicated but with information about ICAL is that acceptable or not? I need to understand what you mean by "notability". It's a rather vague term which, imo, doesn't appear to exist in the school article above.

PS - not trolling, just trying to get a straight answer! You spent half a dozen posts telling me ICAL was removed for being online and then admitted that it had nothing to do with that at all! All I want is a definitive answer from you. --Boldautomatic (talk) 09:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong. You did try to tell me the article was out of place because it was about an online school and then changed to tell me it was because it was about notability. Can we have access to those notes to see?

As I asked before, if I prepare a page on ICAL following the style and content of the page on that other school, would that be acceptable as far as notability is concerned? Please answer this time with a simple yes or no as you are an editor and can remove pages willy nilly so the decision will be yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 06:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read this carefully since you are misunderstanding what I have written.

You made many references to the article being removed because it was online - or why did we have such a long conversation about what constitutes online if you didn't start it? Because we don't appear to have reference to the original conversation about this the truth is not available any more. Pity as you would be able to see how you needed to be cornered before you admitted it was being removed because of notability rather than because it was about an online school.

Regarding the new ICAL article, understand this: I am NOT looking to copy the other school article and I don't know where you get that impression. To explain again, I was talking about the general layout, design and content of the other school site being used as a template for ICAL. The other school contains no external links and yet you allow it remain, so can I assume that having no verifiable external sources is NOT a requirement for inclusion of an article?

PS, please don't hide behing trolling to avoid the question; if you give a proper answer as an editor then I will be satisfied. Why is that so hard for you to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As an editor, will you answer the question posed above (and elsewhere). If you are not able to answer it, who can? --Boldautomatic (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Good. A definitive answer at last. Now, what is the procedure for having this page deleted since there are no external references made and there's nothing notable in the article? --Boldautomatic (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

What's your point here, Bold? That other crap exists? The procedure is well laid out in the deletion policy. Prod it, take it to AfD, nominate it for speedy deletion. Whatever. Stop creating a disruption, okay? Tan ǀ 39 20:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I was down the beach and hence didn't answer. So well done. Now, which statement about ICAL did I make which was not factual and could possibly constitute a whitewash or whatever you chaps call it? --Boldautomatic (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. So my conflict of interest had no bearing on the deletion of the article. Good. Not sure why you bothered to bring that up though since it's irrelevant to the story (apart from your continued desire to obfuscate around here). Anyway, nice to have it clarified and you can now get back to your editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boldautomatic (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Copyright violation

Hi Gb,

I ran across this article, It appears that about 75% of the text is copy-and-pasted from this eBook.
The book is called : Little Pictorial Lives of the Saints: With Reflections for Every Day in the ...
By : John Gilmary Shea
Published : 1894,
Original from the New York Public Library,
Digitized Jul 17, 2006. [5]
I wasn't sure what to do, I didn't know if it was a copyright issue or what license the book was published under.
Hopefully you can take a look at it :) -- $user log ^(Talk) @ 06:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam

Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Scientific Films

You deleted this with what might be considered unseemly haste ... was there a reason for the rush? and for not advising the originating editor in advance? Abtract (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

No reason for the rush - if I recall correctly I was working my way through CAT:CSD in no particular order. That said, the process is called "speedy deletion", and not "moderately quick deletion". ;-)

Sorry, but it failed to assert any particular notability. There is no obligation to inform the originating editor of its deletion - the editor who flagged it for speedy should have left the templated notice on your page letting you know (and I'll give him a gentle reminder to do so), and whilst it's unfortunate that they didn't it doesn't affect the question of its deletion under A7 (he originally flagged it as blatant advertising, but I didn't think it was particularly promotional in nature). _Gb^T/c 07:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think it probably is notable and I am still surprised that the system doesn't allow a delay factor to allow for at least a small debate. However that's water under the bridge, my concern now is how can I re-instate the article (or at least a better form of it) if I feel I can justify it's notability? Naturally, if I can't, I won't. Thanks. Abtract (talk) 08:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be a double-edged sword. To impose an absolute requirement of some form of delay would potentially be a good thing in respect of articles such as this, but maybe not so much in respect of articles which are patent vandalism. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and has been drawn somewhere in between speediable (ie. no assertion of notability) on the one hand, and prodable / AfDable (asserts notability but without verification) on the other.

I've restored the article and moved it to a sub-page of your userspace. You'll find it at User:Abtract/Oxford Scientific Films - feel free to work on it, bring it up to scratch, then move it back when done. _Gb^T/c 09:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Abtract (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tried again ... see what you think this time ... :) Abtract (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, whilst it asserts notability, the overall impression I'm left with (and don't take this the wrong way) is "Meh...and...?". I think I'm probably left with that impression because whilst it uses words like "notable", "widely acclaimed" and "award winning", it doesn't back it up particularly well - whilst the references are about its productions, they don't show what's special about them. It doesn't say what award they won (link 9, which includes the "award winning" quote, is a press release which isn't really a reliable source). Maybe beef it up a bit - what actual awards did they win...? Or is the information in there but I'm missing it? If the latter, maybe bring it to the fore a bit?_Gb^T/c 07:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ... it needs work I agree. Abtract (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Fabrik, Inc.

You deleted our company entry before I could add in links to editorial content that supported our timeline of events. This is not blatant advertising, as you say it is, it documents the events that have transpired in the last three years of a company with respect to the acquisition of other companies and products that have been brought to market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GrnMachine322 (talk • contribs) 2008-07-30

If I may interject: it's effectively spam if the article was created by someone with a conflict of interest. As you have identified yourself as associated with the company, you have a conflict of interest. If the company is notable, an article will be created by someone else. If it isn't notable, then no article needs to be here.

Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

What he said. Plus, I've replied on your talk page. _Gb^T/c 07:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please Help

Please Help. You placed a warning on my page for vandalism. The user at 124.180.57.126 is harassing me. It is actually him who is committing vandalism across several pages. He also tried putting a speedy deletion tag on one of the CVU pages, which I reverted back. If you look at my history, I am actually attempting to fight vandalism, which I assume got him upset... Silverwolf85 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for assisting me so quickly... Sorry you have to go through all the trouble (I noticed they tried it again, and yet you reverted it. Thank you!!!) Silverwolf85 (talk) 07:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. I hope I wasn't too much of a headache tonight. :) Any tips and suggestions as I continue with the whole vandalism issue?

Thanks

I'm sure it was worth deleting, whatever it was. But if it was a cute picture of a sparrow or a kitty cat, put it back! --Blechnic (talk) 08:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how boring. I feel insulted now. --Blechnic (talk) 08:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For reverting the edit on the Pina Renzi article. Lugnuts (talk) 09:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Template?

Hiya... I saw you used a nifty template (I'm assuming it was a template) over at User talk:Dickaselas to request no more vandalism.. What is this template called? I don't even know where to begin looking. Cheers! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ta, cheers! Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 19:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you, sir! [6] --Kralizec! (talk) 02:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your Welcome

Any time, sir! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

NPWatcher-approvals

Hey Gb, would you be so kind and take care about the requests at User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage? They need an admin to be cared about and noone did so for a week. Thanks in advance! So#Why ^{review me!} 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've watchlisted the page, as well, so I can keep an eye on it in the future. _Gb^T/c 17:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, you are a good guy :-) So#Why ^{review me!} 18:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Short cmt, you seem to have messed up the list, using a "*" and not "#" when adding my name. Just a short thing, dunno if it affects the tool or not. Thanks again So#Why ^{review me!} 18:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Short nswr. You're right, have fixed it. Thanks. _Gb^T/c 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Warning

So I might be blocked. Oh dear.Kirker (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Tips on Tags

I just wanted to say a quick thanks for the tips on the tags. I am still unsure of what a lot of the tags are so I generally end up going with the closest thing I can find from Huggle's menus.Ajh16 (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bravo Two Zero, photo dispute

Hello Gb

On this matter, would you mind cementing the concensus so that the image should not be re-inserted by Bin please? Its just that I think it is conclusive, me Derek and Nick are on the same "wave lentgh" against Bin, I think it would be time to do this due to the edit warring that has occured, many thanks. Yours, Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Walking Bicycles deletion

It seems the article I created was deleted though there was still discussion on it. I would at least like to know what I could have done to make that article more suitable. Thank you. Cupioarcanamundi (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)