User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive31

Deliantra
Could you explain the (very short) reason you gave for delting the article? There were two keeps and two deletes, the two keeps explaining why the article is notable. Since obviously they were discounted (for what reason, WP:SPA clearly doesn't fit there and so cnanot be applied to the twodiscounted opinions), it would be nice if you could explain the reason, as, unlike the deletes, they actually explained the reasoning behind the keeps I don't think they should be discounted at a whim.87.139.53.102 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Jason Lau
Jaranda, can you please tell me why you deleted this article. 05:45, 22 July 2007 Jaranda (Talk | contribs) deleted "Jason Lau" ‎ (CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance) sorry for the delayed reaction but none the less how did you come to the absolute authority or conclusion about the the significance of this person. The article was approved by Wiki's admins. There's no advertisement and this person is of notable character and a student of Jiu Wan. Please help me understand.

Canvassing
...to stop a rouge admin from changing a notability standard he doesn't like. Yeah. Also, don't threaten, it's not very nice. - NeutralHomer T:C 03:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Brady Leaf
I noticed you started an AfD for Brady Leaf a while back, which resulted in merging into his older brother's article and redirecting. An anon has now changed the redirect back in to an article. I reverted him once, but he changed it back and I wanted to see what you though before reverting again (and possibly protecting). Personally I don't think he is notable enough to have a page, and the AfD was valid, but things like this tend to lean towards allowing an article (which I personally 100% disagree with, but I will comply with what the community wants). Thoughts? VegaDark (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted and protect. As for the other article didn't see that AFD of Bryce Taylor, again WP:BIO is broken with sports articles and people who knows nothing about sports quote that and that's one reason why wikipedia is broken, I really want WP:SPORTS to become an active discussion again. This is a Secret account 18:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A quick question
Hey I had a quick question for you about User:Ronnalyn anuyo, if you look at her page she is treating it like Wikipedia is a dating site or something like that. I really do not know what to do, so I figured I would just bring it to an admin's attention. Thanks. Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is, of course, subject to the "We're all human" disclaimer, but I posted a uw-socialnetwork notice along with a note describing potential privacy implications to the user's talk page. Further input from an admin would, of course, be welcome. I just went with my gut instinct on this one. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 09:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

you deleted "East End Hockey Association"
Could we discuss why my posting was deleted. It has historical significance in NYC as the oldest and still existing roller hockey organization.

02:32, 15 November 2007 Secret (Talk | contribs) deleted "East End Hockey Association" ‎ (CSD A7 (Group): Article about a club or group that does not assert significance)

--Tmartin91 (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it didn't claim Notabilty, no reliable sources as well, see WP:ORG This is a Secret account 18:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I can cite several articles from the NY Times if you would like. It has relevance as an athletic organization that has been the fabric of roller hockey in NYC. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE1DE143FF935A15751C1A96E948260

They are also notable as being at the forefront of helping save the Robert Moses Playground next to the UN from developers. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/nyregion/thecity/01lot.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E5DB153BF931A15752C0A967948260

Tom (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

incorrect speedies
Not that I think the following are likely to be good articles, but It sends a confusing signal when we admins don't get it right. Recently you deleted via speedy:
 * Victor Quartermaine as A7 non notable, but it is a fictional character.--but according to WP:CSD only real people can be deleted. "An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significan. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources. If controversial, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
 * Uruguay 2030 as "Article about subject that does not assert significance" But it about plans for a future event., not any of the above.
 * Major league career of Barry Bonds as first, "not worth an article", and then " (fork rejected in talk". Neither are speedy criteria.
 * Teleonomical prayers as "blatant advertising" The article is simply not advertising or public relations in any sense of the word, but a long specialized descriptive article--not that i understand it
 * Terence Glover as bio article that does not assert significance, though it say he "curated exhibitions at galleries and museums in the United States, Mexico, Canada, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina and Cuba. Terence has published seven editions...and has created public projects for Cologne, Mexico City, and New York City." That is at least as assertion of significance.
 * TPR magazine as nn-company, but a magazine is not a company. Books, magaziens, newspapers--none of them fit in A7.

I have tried to select examples where it is not just a question of interpretation. I also note that for many of these you have done the speedy in one step, judging by yourself without prior tagging by someone else. Please try to be more careful. DGG (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * First one can be undeleted and merged, my mistake, second one read the article closer, it a group/organization trying to promote the world cup in 2030, valid speedy, the Bonds article was a split fork that was quickly rejected in the talk page, prayers read like spam, but in closer look should go to AFD, the Glover article I didn't see no history when I quickly checked, the magazine article didn't claim notabilty. Most of the articles deleted here I got was from a recently formed list of articles that likely missed CSD patrol, those articles were never tagged, and mostly consists of nn companys and spam. Thanks This is a Secret account 04:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I undeleted and prodded Victor Quartermaine, Teleonomical prayers,, per the above discussion, and undeleted and put an unsourced tag Terence Gower.   I read 2030 differently than you--you are probably right about the agenda, but that's not what the article says. Bonds could possibly be justified as a speedy as housekeeping. But you misunderstood, I think about  TPR magazine -- it is not a candidate for speedy A7 even there is zero claim of notability, or zero likelihood of notability, because its not one of the things listed in WP:CSD A7, but not worth reverting you (I have never yet reverted someone else's deletion) or taking to DelRev. thanks for reconsidering things.  DGG (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article titled Ilavida
The article Ilavida is about an important character in the Indian epic, The Ramayana, the stepmother of the villain Ravana. This article was "speedily deleted" for not specifying its notability.

I thought the importance of the article would be self-evident to most Hindus. The source for the article is the Ramayana -- an epic that is a few thousand years old. It would have helped if you had put out a note, asking for my explanation, before just speedily deleting the article. Unless, of course, Wikipedia.org only caters to European and American populations and does not see the relavance of an article based on an Indian epic here.

-Kreedanthi.

Better to rewrite and source the article, and mention the book and importance of the subject, the current version didn't This is a Secret account 00:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of what this user wrote on my talk page here it seems they sincerely want to be a positive contributor to the wiki. I told him I would speak with you but after that, I can't guarantee anything. I am going to assume good faith on this users part and ask if you would consider shortening his block, or giving him another second chance on his talk page? Thank you for your consideration. Bmg 916  Speak 15:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I unblocked, but if he goes back to socking or revert warning, he's gone This is a Secret account 23:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand, and completely agree. I will let you know if I see anything resembling that type of behavior. Regards, Bmg 916  Speak 00:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Userfication request
Could you userfy Captain Cook Cruises on a subpage of my userpage? I think I might be able to establish notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Martijn Hoekstra/Captain Cook Cruises done This is a Secret account 23:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ah thanks, I missed that for a moment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ilavida
I see that you have deleted a notable article about one of the most important Hindu epics, Ilavida. I am assisting user Kreedanthi, who posted the question on the Help Desk. Please answer there. Regards, Feed   back   ☎ 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article consisted of

Ilavida was the daughter of the Rishi Bharadwaja and the sister of the Rishi Garga. She married Rishi Vishrava and bore him a son, Kubera, the Lord of Wealth and the original ruler of Lanka.

Vishrava left his wife and son after meeting the Asura Princess Kaikesi, with whom he fell in love. Through her, he fathered another four children, Ravana, Vibhishana, Kumbakarna and Soorpanaka. When Ravana invaded Lanka and usurped Kubera's throne, a disgusted Vishrava left his demonic family and returned to Ilavida, never to see Kaikesi or her offspring ever again.

No claim of notabilty, doesn't really tell what it is This is a Secret account 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So if the user sources the information, will you green-light the article? Feed   back   ☎ 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I deleted the article in the first place, I didn't repond to her earlier because I didn't go on today until an hour ago. This is a Secret account 01:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DRV notice
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brady Leaf. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jreferee   t / c  19:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking
Please don't threaten to block me for disrupting afd's unless you can show evidence of this disruption. I have certainly never tried to be disruptive and have only acted in good faith. I don't see how any of the afd closures I did could be called disruptive. The very worst I could be accused of is being somewhat premature. My regards to you. RMHED (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova's talk page
I reverted your blanking on Durova's talk page for now, but could you explain why you removed that post without an edit summary? Videmus Omnia Talk  01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is the banned user? Videmus Omnia Talk  01:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Songgarden who was blocked as a sock of User:Amorrow This is a Secret account 01:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK. Could you point me to the checkuser? Videmus Omnia Talk  01:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask Durova for that, but from dealing with some socks of Ammorrow in the past, looking at the contribs, it's obvious that Songgarden is him, including an harrassment post of SlimVirgin a victim of his horrible harrassment. Even if it's not him, which doubt, it's an obvious WP:SPA troll. This is a Secret account 01:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It would have been better if you had indicated that in your edit summary when you removed the person's post. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

School notability guideline
I've created a project page: SCHOOLCONSENSUS; I'd be very happy to see your draft in the reference section.--victor falk 05:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I been editing sporatic this holiday, I'll create it when I'm fully back This is a Secret account 20:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Brett Favre list
Hi. I recently received a request to undelete List of career achievements by Brett Favre but you deleted the latest version so I referred them to you. However, I notice that you and I both deleted that article as a creation by different banned users! Do you think the Tecmobowl/Jmfangio socks are related to the Starwars1955 socks? I know of no connection but it's a hell of a coincidence that both would create the same article. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Doubt they are related, just by the article versions themselves, one is starwars prefered section, and another one is the consensus version, don't restore by the way. This is a Secret account 20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Raiders (aka the Raider Nation)
Can you unprotect the page Oakland Raiders? It's been over 2 months and vandalism levels should have decreases by now. 69.181.230.137 (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown
Would you select three, or six, and format them for the award? I tightened up on the submission a few months ago because it was getting backlogged from requests that required extensive search through user histories. User:Durova/Triple_crown_winner%27s_circle Durova Charge! 20:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC
I notice that you locked the RfC page, so I thought I'd mention that I just 'closed' the talkpage discussion on Durova's RfC. I assume it was the correct thing to do. Lsi john (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:1993 Topps Pete Incaviglia.jpg
Hi. A while back you replaced a deleted article for me 1993 Topps. The image that was with it was also deleted. I was wondering if you could restore it or do I have to upload it again? Libro0 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Reupload This is a Secret account 06:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

T206 Honus Wagner
Thought you might want to know about this. Thanks again for mentioning the article on IRC a few months ago. :) Nishkid64 (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom voting pages
Hiya,

I see these have been created and linked (eg from statements).

How are votes and comments before 3 December being dealt with?

Would it be wise to overwrite each page with a blank ("This page is not open yet. Comments here will be removed." under the statement for example) that can be rolled back at 00.00 Dec 3? Or protect them?

Just a thought. If there is a page, people will write on it.....

FT2 (Talk 16:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

MastCell
Can you explain your reasoning further? I don't see why using IRC or "the" mailing list (what mailing list? obviously no-one's talking about arbcom-l here) should be mandatory, but I'd like to hear your thoughts. —Random832 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

About Giano's "near" 90-day block
Just an FYI, if you looked closely, the proposed "remedy" was pushed by a couple of arbiters who don't like Giano much. There was little, if anything, to support such a measure, which is why it failed 5-7. Not trying to get you to change to support, I'm just giving you an FYI. Mr Which??? 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Riff (band)
Hi, I saw you speedily deleted this article. Being as the group had a #25 pop hit in the US (see List of 1990s one-hit wonders in the United States), can I have the article restored? I can fix it up if it's not in good shape. Chubbles 21:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chubbles 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User:74.200.75.5
I must say your comments here were not very appropriate. Threatening a block before any explanations have been given? How is that acceptable? Your actions, and the actions of User:Hemlock Martinis (blocking administrator) were unnecessary, and uncalled for. Opposed to biting the newcomers (although I admit it is odd that a new account went to ArbCom elections almost immediately, but AGF), I took the time to explain to the user what the problem was. Today, the user was unblocked and rightfully so. Just be a bit more civil next time, please. - Rjd0060 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments like this is obvious trolling, I stand by my comment and I'm in shock that he was unblocked. This is a Secret account 00:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It isn't "obvious trolling". The problem was never explained to the user, which should have happened, as specifically stated in the blocking policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me while I butt in here, "This is a secret account" That clue is something to question, why that name, hmmm? Please stop using the word "trolling", especially preceded by "obvious". It is being used much too liberally here lately. This is becoming a huge problem on Wikipedia, not the trolls but the throwing the word around lightly for anyone who writes something that could be a bit adversarial. It takes away the serious meaning when one is "truly" "trolling"... a serious offense, not to be taking lightly. How in the heck can you determine that from behind a computer, anyway? You cannot know a person's intent by just looking at some words typed. My gosh, even in psychology, the "experts" have to see body, facial and a number of other "clues" to judge a behavior. Please stop playing cops and psychologists without a valid license. Now, even if any of you do have one, you cannot do it over the internet and if you think you can, the license needs to be revoked. - Jeeny (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry I'm standing by my comment, I know suspitious edits when I see them. This is a Secret account 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish I had your secret powers. ;p - Jeeny (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness there are a few sane admins around. I have hope again. Still, needs some type of overhaul though. - Jeeny (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Puxxled
Hello Secret - what does "CBD" refer to? (You mentioned it in your vote on Swat). I think maybe Swat wouldn't have been drawn to Genteen's page if you hadn't started it! I really don't see anything wrong with what he did btw. (Sarah777 (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

The editor who opposed a couple above you, oppose 88. This is a Secret account 00:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Still puxxled - not familiar with the term "resign your bit"! But it sounds kinda hostile -:) (Sarah777 (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC))

He was saying that a editor whose only edit the deletion of his nn band by the admin, and the blanking of the same admin userpage is a blockable offence, even without any warning. This is a Secret account 00:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

RFA
Yes, I noticed. I stated my piece and he responded as is his right. I don't need to have the last word. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

bad speedies
You just deleted 3 articles on churches under WP:CSD A7, not notable. Grace Church (Maryland Heights, Missouri), "Jackson First Church of the Nazarene and Our Lady of Grace (Howard Beach) Where does it say that churches are subject o speedy--there's a list of the types of things that are, and only those may be deleted. Please restore them and send them to Prod, where they belong. If we admins dont do things right, people will lose respect for speedy altogether.
 * You also deleted Cornell Ranger as nn. But its a robot,not a person, and that also doesnt fit.(& it may beven be notable. Please restore it. DGG (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Churches fall under A7 buisness, or A7 group, if they don't claim notabilty, with those three didn't, I'll restore the robot. Secret account 21:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio from the robot article, not restoring it. Secret account 21:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * yes, you are right on the robot one--I missed the copyvio, as did you the first time around.
 * But, is a church a "group" or a "company" I do not see how it can possibly be both or them. But which one do you think it is, and then I will continue the argument.DGG (talk) 03:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's more of a group, as a church is just a group of people meeting in a building, worshipping. Without proper sources, small churches don't claim notabilty. Secret account 23:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Yo
Yo Jaranda, it is nice to see you back on wikipedia, and sorry about that stupid stuff i was involved with before, hope it was'nt the reason you quit the first time, can we still be friends.Thanks.p.s. reply on my page.--Sunderland06 18:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope nothing to do with you Secret account 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers mate.Sunderland06 (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing votes from indef blocked users
Hi, I noticed that you indented User:Arkalochori's various votes since the user has since been indef-blocked. I'm not sure where it says that a user's votes should be stricken if they voted before they got blocked (although it certainly makes sense to me). If we are doing that, you may wish to strike User:Dbuckner's votes as well since he has been indef blocked. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I remembered that happened with a few users in last year elections, as for Dbuckner, Done Secret account 22:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Secret, why did you strike through Dbuckner's votes? If they were legitimate when he made them, they're legitimate now. The other user mentioned above was blocked for sockpuppetry, which meant the vote was never legit. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I striked them out because he was blocked indef during the elections, and he was blocked indef because he was disrupting one of the candidates platforms, therefore it was rarely legit. Thanks Secret account 23:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hang on. When he voted, he was an editor in good standing. He was later blocked for something completely unrelated to the particular votes that you struck. There is therefore no reason to strike them. Would you undo your edits, please? SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with SV. Bans aren't retroactive. Edits by a banned user while they are banned are subject to striking, rollbacks, and speedy deletions. Edits by a banned user made before he was banned should be treated the same as edits by any other user.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Black Marsh
I would hardly consider Black Marsh, a former GA, as worthy of deletion. It was referenced, I didn't see a huge conflict with WP:FICTION. There were 2 for keep and 2 for delete, that's hardly a consensus. I suggest this be opened for discussion again.TostitosAreGross (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete deletion
In this afd, the second article, SA-43 Hammerhead, wasn't deleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Secret account 23:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano's Arbcom vote page
I'm puzzled why you moved my (and another user's) votes to the talk page. --Dweller (talk) 13:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved it to the talk page, as it's wasn't really a vote, just a opinion. Secret account 23:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. However, as it was my vote, I believe that my opinion is rather more relevant, and that is that it was a vote. I'm going to replace it where it was. I'll drop the other user a note and check that he was voting, rather than giving opinion. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you could readd it, as it wasn't in the support or oppose section, just in a moral support section which weren't going to be counted. Thanks Secret account 19:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Even thogh it was an opinion it was stated at the top of the page that all oppinions would stay there as to help the candidates understand their base. Redstarsldr (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

"There is only a space for support or oppose comments" that what it says. Other comments or extended comments should go to the talk page. Thanks Secret account 20:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Coningsby Club
Just back from a few days away and I see that you've closed the AfD debate as "delete" citing WP:V. How are two independent published secondary sources (one an encyclopedia of British and Irish political organizations and one a general history of the University of Oxford) not enough for verification? --Paularblaster (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Like DGG said, both sources tells that the club exists, but that's it, no other info. Secret account 01:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It's enough to verify that the club is notable - otherwise neither source would have mentioned it at all. How many dining clubs, and in how much detail, do you expect a one-volume history of an 830-year-old university to mention? Or an encyclopedia of political organizations? They not only show that it exists, they "note" its existence within the strict constraints of paper publication. Wikipedia should be able to do at least as much. A quick search just now turns up: “After the war at a Coningsby Club dinner Eden confessed that the most important professional blunder of his life had been British policy towards Yugoslavia.” A. Jack in Labour History Review, 58:2 (1993), p. 7. In one aspect the club is "just mentioned" (the topic is British policy towards Mihailovic) - in another aspect it shows that it is worth mentioning. Since you're an administrator, can I ask you to put the article back? --Paularblaster (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV, again there needs to be reliable, verifible in which the club is the main subject of these sources, not passing mentions. Secret account 02:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Relisting AfD discussions
Please make sure to comment out discussions on the old day's AfD list when relisting for further discussions on a new day's list. (Hopefully that made sense). You can see what I mean by commenting out here. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Normally when you relist, it's to get a couple of extra comments before closing it a few hours later. Secret account 04:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Wal-Mart (disambiguation)
Why did you close this discussion with no consensus?!?! The way I see it, there was active discussion at the time of its closure, and the discussion was leaning in the direction of moving the page to a List of Wal-Mart articles title, instead of a disambiguation page. I was actually going to change my vote on this before you closed the AfD, but didn't get a chance. I still feel quite strongly that a disambiguation page is inappropriate in this case, but I am willing to compromise and go with the list article instead. But instead, whenever I try and do this, Shaliya waya reverts my move, saying that I can't do that. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Looking at this a little more closely, I still don't see how you could not call consensus on this?!?! Here's the users' opinions on the matter, the way I see it:


 * delete (7 named users)
 * Derek.cashman
 * JJL
 * Rjd0060
 * Verdatum
 * IslaamMaged126
 * Tuxide
 * Cumulus Clouds


 * keep (3 named users, 2 anons)
 * Shaliya waya
 * Sebwite
 * 71.206.43.21
 * 12.4.192.130
 * Peterkingiron


 * (note: If you look at the contributations of the two anonymous users above, neither of them has more than 10 edits, so I personally wouldn't put much weight into their opinions)


 * rename (4 named users)
 * Ten Pound Hammer
 * Dennis The Tiger
 * Whpq
 * Folk smith (note: this user originally voted to keep, but a more recent edit changed this to renaming, though he didn't strikeout the original comments)


 * merge to Wal-Mart or Wal-Mart corporate family (1 anon user)
 * 132.205.99.122


 * So, IMHO, it looks like a pretty clear consensus to me. Dr. Cash (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

AFD isn't a vote count, I couldn't find policy based consensus, so I closed it as that. Note I also protected the article from moves. Secret account 21:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haiku from a new admin
Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

  Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → → Janitor's new tools

Spam must stop -- will new mop act?

Ooops, .com blocked

New admin, new tools

Earnest newbie furrows brow

Fare thee well Main Page

New mess all about

Sorcerer's Apprentice mop

Not supporter's fault

A. B. so grateful

Wikipedia trembles

Watch out DRV

A. B. wonders why

Copyright always confused

Fair use, farewell, bye

Qatar is blocked

Shucks those range blocks are tricky!

Will get it straight soon.



Dear RfA friend, I will learn, chaos will fade ''Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Secret, you may be secretive, but I appreciate your open support in my RfA. -- A. B. (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Captain Proton AFD
Hi, I did see that the result was to delete the article, but one of the users have now re-created the article again after the AFD was closed with the same title - The Adventures of Captain Proton - guess the AFD didn't mean anything to him. Ejfetters (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That was a poor use of admin tools. The AfD was CLEARLY no consensus, and I still haven't found the WP guideline that states "admins can willingly ignore a consensus (or lack thereof) if they happen to dislike the arguments of one side." Justin  chat 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great success!
<div style="border: 2px solid #fff; margin: 0 0 0 0; padding: 10px 10px 10px 10px; background-color: #eef;"> <div style="margin-top: 3px; padding-top: 9px; padding-bottom: 9px; padding-left: 9px; padding-right: 9px; width: 250px;"> Click that-a-way to open your card! → → → <span style="font-family: times, arial; font-size: 110%;">Dear Secret,

Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email.

Thanks especially for thinking of nominating me. Even though it didn't happen, it was very heartening to read. Thought that counts! :-)

Cordially, — <font face="Arial" color="green">xDanielx T/C\R 06:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks.

List better as category
When you PROD a list such as List of people from Quetta stating that it would be better as a category, may I suggest that you create and populate the category, rather than let the information be lost on the expiry of the PROD? In this case it did not take long! - Fayenatic (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The Fast and the Furious 4
Hello, Secret. I have written an article for The Fast and the Furious 4 on a subpage, found at User:Squishy Vic/The Fast and the Furious 4. I was wondering if you could please unprotect The Fast and the Furious 4 so that I may post this information? I have set all the references and proper information up on the subpage and categorized it accordingly. Please respond back, thank you. -- Victor  (talk)  21:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In a case like this it's better to take it to WP:DRV, the movie is still in pre-production, therefore it's still in WP:CRYSTAL range, once the movie is in production, than an article can be possible. Thanks Secret account 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks anyway. I'll try to get back to you when it's no longer in pre-production. -- Victor  (talk)  23:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Parmarth Niketan ashram page
Dear Administrator, I am wondering why you removed the page on Parmarth Niketan and if there is anything which could be done to fix it. the ashram is one of the 5 most famous spiritual institutions in all of India and it is the host of the world famous international yoga festival each year. They have thousands of people staying there at any given time and their activities are covered DAILY in the Indian TV and print news media. Further, it is the ashram to which the Discovery Channel chose to go twice, BBC once, Channel 4 (UK prime time), once in addition to the Indian channels. Major documentaries were made about them by Discovery (see Atlas: India which broadcast on November 18), the Travel Channel (famous actor Jeremy Piven, winner of 2 emmy awards, did an entire show on his visit to this place). I know they didn't include all of that in the article because they felt that would make it sound like an advertisement. Please rethink your decision regarding this article because it really is one of the most famous places in India, particularly for the spiritually-inclined. Thanks so much for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.142.230 (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks
--Michael Greiner 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

FECRIS - deleted page
Hello ! I just noticed that you have deleted the page on FECRIS for copyright violation. 03:14, 10 December 2007 Secret (Talk | contribs) deleted "FECRIS" (CSD G12: Copyright violation: copyvio from http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f22.html) There is a corresponding page on the French language wikipedia, and I am willing to translate it.

fr:Fédération européenne des centres de recherche et d’information sur le sectarisme

I have not seen the English page. Could you please restore it to my discussion page so that I may fix it up ? Many thanks GastelEtzwane (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't on here, as it's pure copyvio, but you could translate it the french article to here. Thanks Secret account 22:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. No longer have time right now, it's like 0h30 in the morning and I work tomorrow... I will recreate the article using the same name. By the way, on fr.wikipedia, they do not like acronyms (aka FECRIS), they prefer the full name. I take it that naming the article «FECRIS» is OK here. GastelEtzwane (talk) 23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea Secret account 01:32, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Could you please have a look ? Thanks... GastelEtzwane (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote
Sorry about trying to vote. I didn't realize I was ineligible. Maxpower37 (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Alasdair Milne
I just reverted vandalism on the Alasdair Milne page, which regards a former Director-General of the BBC. While doing so I noticed that oddly there was almost nothing on the page, in contrast to the D-Gs before and after (especially since the vandalism accused the "Wiki Police" of having pruned it). In the history I see that you removed almost the entirety of the article, on the grounds of sourcing and possibly bias; I can't speak to the sourcing, but the removed portions of the article did not seem to be particularly POV one way or the other. Can you explain why you did this? I think it's a bit dangerous to remove an entire article for any reason without a very serious concern, especially without replacing the information. Wally (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Half the article was a WP:COATRACK about the BBC, and most of the rest of the article was about unsourced conterversy which violates WP:BLP. Secret account 22:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

EndlessDan
Hey, you appear to have voted twice against EndlessDan, though the second looks like it was just a mistake. Thought I'd let you know. Atropos (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Thanks for offering, I think I'll wait for now, but I appreciate the offer. <font face="Comic Sans"> Corvus cornix talk  00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)