I reply to your message here, for the sake of keeping discussions un-fragmented — I suggest temporarily watching this page.
Please be civil when contacting me, just tell me what I did calmly and I will honestly look into it.
I archive this page periodically. Sometimes I may archive a post that I haven't replied to! So if I accidentally archive a request that I didn't perform, please remind me to reply.
Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
You prevented or commented on an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chem-Dry per your request I have replied to you in the TALK section of that page. Please review.
Hi, I thought I'd respond on your page rather than clog up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edgar se cae. There have been articles on similar subjects recently though I don't think many if any have survived. One of the more notorious ones involved a video of teenagers deliberately orchestrating a motorcycle accident in a public playground. Keep an eye on Articles for deletion (as I see you do), they're bound to crop up! Mallanox 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, u "messaged" me or whatever and deleted my gear section in tom delonge whyd you delete them. If its because they didnt have a source, how would i cite photographs and first hand accounts, such as when ive seen him live? IShootNewbs 01:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You recently participated in an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taco Bell menu. The article was deleted but is up for deletion review here. I thought you may be interested in participating in that discussion. Ifnord 03:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ifnord. I've left my feedback, although I'm not sure what good it will do. RFerreira 19:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the AfD you voted Merge into William H. Gates, Sr. I've added some notes to the article, namely the books she co-authored and a reference to her influence in the Association of Art Museum Director's guideline against selling art collection pieces. I think those items help establish her individual notability in the art world (and apart from her husband and step-son). I would appreciate any time you may give in reviewing the additions to see if they merit a keep. Thanks. Agne 19:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Agne 20:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AfD vote on Lone Wolf Real Esate Technologies[edit]
Hi! I was just looking at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lone_Wolf_Real_Estate_Technologies, and I think you may have based your comment on a misunderstanding. They don't claim 3000 offices; they claim that their customers have a total of 3000 offices. Would that change your opinion? Thanks, William Pietri 00:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.
Hi there, Mr. Admin. Please can you take a look at closing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Haverford_Review. This dicussion is now on its 10th day, and as you can see it's not a particularly controversial discussion at all and there's no reason for it to continue so long, so it seems to have just slipped through the cracks. Thanks very much for your adminning efforts. Bwithh 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 66/11/5. I learned quite a bit during the process, and I expect to be learning a lot more in the days ahead. As I stated in the request itself, I respect your decision to oppose me based on my short tour of duty, but I hope I can earn your trust. I will be taking things slowly (and doing a lot of re-reading), but please let me know if there is anything I can do to improve in my new capacity. -- MeropeTalk 13:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCursework 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which finished with a tally of 52/6/1 (~90%). It was an interesting process which gave me a chance to learn a bit about myself and about the community. My intention now is to slowly ease into using those additional buttons on my page. No use being over eager and mucking up the works. The support of all those who went over my record and/or rallied to my defense after the big oppose vote was instumental to the success of this review. Again, thank you! --StuffOfInterest 12:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote to keep iff the NYT bestsellers were substantiated. While it's hard to prove a negative, I was able to, instead, find a space on her campaign page bio that said that she edited NYT bestsellers, which suggests the claim was in error. So you may want to change your comment on the AfD. AnonEMouse(squeak) 17:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You recently participated in a discussion on the possible deletion or merger of some Danny Phantom characters. While all the articles were kept, I noted that many of those commenting on the debate suggested merging some characters into a main list. Seeing this, I've compiled a list of some of the minor characters who may not need their own article, and would like the opinions of those who weighed in originally. You can participate in the discussion here. Ral315 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support in my RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate your comments, am still in support of the Wikipedia project, and will continue to contribute without interruption. Thanks again! --Elonka 11:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input on my (nearly recent) Request for adminship, which regretfully achived no consensus, with votes of 68/28/2. I am grateful for the input received, both positive and in opposition, and I'd like to thank you for your participation.
Not that I disagree with you... but comments such as this are not exaclty a model of civility. But keep up the anti-vandalism work! Cheers! --Ginkgo100talk · e@ 05:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That was the most neutrally phrased term I could come up with under the circumstances, sorry if I offended anyone. RFerreira 05:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contested speedy deletions should go to AFD, not DRV in my opinion. Either way, cut the guy some slack for nominating the article for deletion on his own, will you? RFerreira 06:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree that contested speedies shouldn't bog down DRV and any (noninvolved) admin should be allowed to recreate and send to AfD, but as of now speedies are subject to deletion review and then, if at all, AfD. If you want you can propose a change in procedure at DRV talk. You'd surely have my support. ~ trialsanderrors 00:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How did this ever come to be, I wonder? Was it through instruction creep? I am rather curious about this one, because this specific piece of the deletion process seems to be overly bureaucratic and (I believe) the project as a whole would be better served if these were moved directly to AFD when they crop up. RFerreira 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How ya doin? The citations for the page on Idareds are as follows:
I whacked the text from the french page, and then ran it though
altavista, and cleaned up the grammer in Micro$oft viod. ...
Hmmm Maybye it was the german page... I cannot remember.
but its the same page as another language, and HappyCamper helped.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andros Karperos Middle School[edit]
Whether it's a vote or discussion isn't as big of a deal to me as those guys trying to belittle the opinions of others. People disrespecting others really bothers me, I apoogize if I caused any undue hassle. Just H 03:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a discussion, not a vote, but by both accounts, the consensus was going towards deletion, not keeping. You tried to suggest otherwise without any reason (not for why you wanted to keep it, nor why you thought it had a consensus to do so), and I wanted to show that both by arguments (which is the correct way) and by numbers, you were incorrect. This is not belittling, just showing flaws. As for why I support deletion over redirecting (in reply to the closers query): I have tried redirecting school articles, and people just undo the redirect and recreate the article, no matter how useless it is (e.g. Dashwood School, Banbury). There is no policy or guideline against recreating a redirect, but there is against recreating a deleted one. So I prefer deleting above redirecting in many cases. But I'll not actively oppose the AfD, I'll only join the discussion if someone else would take it to DRV or undo the redirect without seriously sourced additional info showing notability of the school. Fram 06:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see a Merge vote as different than a delete vote. Just H 20:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirect is undone without adding sourced information, I will take it to DRV; that would seem to me an attempt to end-run around the consensus determined through the AfD. I see no reason to contest the result now, though. (And in reply to RFerreira, I do not object to redirecting these stubs -- although I do wish the merges would be performed more proactively by those who end up !voting to do so.) Shimeru 07:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've deprodded this after adding a few links, even though it's way short of 100% evidence of notability, and I've left a note on the talk page too. What do you think? --Mereda 13:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the article does nothing to give any context as to why this person is notable, other than he was the head of PG&E for a few years. Even more unfortunate is that Google only provides 91 unique matches for this figure, and most of them are derivatives or mirrors of Wikipedia, so there isn't much to work from in terms of reliable sources on-line. I'll ask the creator, Tobyk777, if he has any other source material to expand from. RFerreira 03:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That's a good way of handling it. If that approach too fails to draw out any printed sources, then I guess the only road is AfD. (My reservations certainly wouldn't justify a "keep".) --Mereda 17:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken it to AfD now. Maybe someone there will notice it and fix it. --Mereda 10:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of (97/4/4)! I've never been able to accept compliments gracefully, and the heavy support from this outstanding community left me at a complete loss for words -- so, a very belatedthank you for all of your kind words.
I have done and will continue to do the utmost to serve the community in this new capacity, wherever it may take me, and to set an example others might wish to follow in. With a little luck and a lot of advice, this may be enough. Maybe someday the enwiki admins of the future will look back and say, "Yeah, that guy was an admin." Hopefully then they don't start talking about the explosive ArbComm case I got tied into and oh what a drama that was, but we'll see, won't we?
Surely some of you have seen me in action by now; with that in mind, I openly invite and welcome any feedback here or here -- help me become the best editor and sysop I can be.
The "know it all" extlink has been in place since the article was created [1]. I'm concerned that the timing of its removal may be taken the wrong way by people who don't know or care about the Self-ref rule, and who may report on it in a forum outside of Wikipedia, in a light we have no control over. I've seen it happen before, journalists love a good story, see the most recent mess over journalist Talk:Timothy Noah. -- Stbalbach 06:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clear from my explanation on the talk page plus the edit summary why the link has been removed. If you are going to dispute the removal please do so on the Stacy Schiff talk page, not here. RFerreira 06:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, seeing you have been involved in previous Afd debates on the subject I invite you to contribute to this discussion to clarify certain issues about football player notability. I think clearer guidelines are needed to avoid repeated inappropriate nominations for deletion and time consuming discussions. Cheers! StephP 22:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFerreira, thanks for your support in my successful RfA.
As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons,
which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance,
or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools,
please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I can't be stuffed edit warring over a wrestler. But having read the article, I can't see anything there which I believe would violate either WP:LIVING or be otherwise objectionable. Why the deletions (and why not mention on the article talkpage?) MojoTas 06:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The multitude of edit summaries are more than sufficient for this endemic problem. RFerreira 06:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey RFerreira, since you were involved in the James Earl Salisbury AfD, I'm letting you known that after discussion with Mckaysalisbury I've restored the page to generate more discussion, and hopefully a clearer consensus. You may wish to comment on the talk page.--Cúchullaint/c 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been much improved since you indicated that it should be deleted. You may wish to reconsider your position on its AFD. CaerwineCaer’s whines 22:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the debate that you closed above does not qualify for a non-administrator closing as speedy keep. The discussion was only two days old and instead you could have made note of the rewrite in the discussion rather than closing it early as well as against the general consensus of the debate. Instead, please make your issues known at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate censorship (2) without closing it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to disagree, but I stand firmly behind my closure. I need not comment any further in this deletion debate. RFerreira 05:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC on myself in response to the concerns raised during my RfA over my actions in the Gary Weiss dispute. The RfC is located here and I welcome any comments or questions you may have. CLA 05:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(copying comments for ease of communication)
Your comments regarding WP:BLP are fundamentally wrong. I suggest you go read and then re-read what it actually says; replacing unsourced material about a living person which has been challenged is cause for a block. RFerreira 05:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's review this 'policy', shall we?
Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption.
This material is not 'contentious'. It's not being 'challenged'. Those terms imply some level of discourse or argument. He's simply deleting the unsourced material and waving his e-peen around. This is nothing but vandalism wrapped in misinterpretations of policy. Chris Croy 06:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how we've been practicing this policy for the last year or so. I encourage you to raise this issue on the administrator or BLP noticeboard if you are having trouble with policy interpretation, so as to avoid any future problems. RFerreira 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Centre 2000 is up for deletion again - you helped keep it once. :-( Also a similar article at Macleod Mall. Please weigh in on the discussion.68.144.31.71 02:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFerreira, the reason of this message is concerning your views on LongBall which is a real sport, and a very existing and competitive team sport. We are simply trying to make people aware of this game as I believe that they would benefit from its character building attributes. If this letter does not satisfy you I, an ambassador of LongBall invite you to a training match on Friday the 25th from 12:35 till 1:20. The venue is the original and birth place of LongBall, Carey Baptist Grammar School Kew, Melbourne, VIC. The court is closest to the drop off entrance. Please note we have had a few problems with unauthorized editing of the LongBall page and are considering legal action, however we have a busy training schedule. It would be very much appreciated if you could join us this Friday and withdraw your comments as a lot of time and effort has being put in to this website.
Many Thanks,
Guiney —Preceding unsigned comment added by GUINEY115 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A page you created, Melody Oliveria, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is another deletion discussion on List of YouTubers. If you would like to weigh in, you can do so by checking out the discussion here. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:10, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
