User:RenamedUser jaskldjslak901/Archive32

Deletion of My Anime List Article
It seems you deleted this page without giving any reason. A 'Reason Against Deletion' post was placed on the talk page, was it completely disregarded? CanadaAotS (talk) 04:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I see it has a reason now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CanadaAotS (talk • contribs) 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of WHATWG Article
Hey, I noticed that you deleted the WHATWG article for the following reasons "not indicate subject's importance or significance: group with no claim of notabilty, no Reliable sources)". This seems a little extreme, as the WHATWG is a fairly important/notable group, as they are currently writing the draft of HTML 5, one of the two main possible successors to the current web markup language. To say that they have no claim of notability is quite a bit wrong. For example, there have been several articles on the front page of slashdot about their efforts. So that seems to very much nullify the claim of not being notable which you make in the delete log. As for the sources in the article, although they may not exactly follow wikipedia standards, they seem pretty good to me (the official whatwg website, an interview with an MS developer about them, and info from the W3C website about the WHATWG and their actions with respect to them). And finally, as far as failing to indicate the subject's importance, I feel that this quote from the deleted article "On 2007-04-10, the Mozilla Foundation, Apple and Opera Software proposed[6] that the new HTML working group of the W3C adopt the WHATWG’s HTML5 as the starting point of its work and name its future deliverable "HTML 5". On 2007-05-09, the new HTML working group resolved to do that.[7]" somewhat addresses the notability of their efforts, although it could be better done. It seems like 5 minutes on google and a quick edit or flagging the article or starting a discussion on the talk page would have been more useful. --207.207.127.247 (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * agree, please restore. riffic (talk) 06:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. riffic (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was restored per obvious consensus at AfD. I recommend you be more careful in speedily deleting articles, especially when the articles have a long edit history and have received a high importance rating by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Cheers, trialsanderrors (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What I saw is a nn group and sources that doesn't seem reliable, i know squat about computers, the AFD should be unclosed those for more opinions, as I still don't see any notabilty Secret account 19:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 3
Thank you for your support throughout my RfA process. I very much noticed and appreciated your efforts. It was quite a dramatic debate! And a very close call, but I'm very happy that the third time turned out to be the charm. :) Thanks again, Elonka 09:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FRING
Hi there, Please can we bring back the article about fring I have prepared an article at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:135.245.72.35/Fring_(draft) and i am sure it can be added without being deleted. If it is deleted again then the article about truphone should also be deleted.

These are both destructive technologies and they both deserve an article on wikipedia.

Thank you

regards

Goplett (talk) 13:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Ahem
I have not violated 3RR, and I do not take your accusation that I have kindly. I also direct you to []. This is a policy and cannot be ignored. Jtrainor (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I warned you for it, I didn't say you broke it Secret account 22:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Also that section applies mainly to wikiprojects and groups of editors Secret account 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to warn anyone for 3RR unless they break it, which I have not. Give me credit for being able to count to three, please. Jtrainor (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You could warn people if they reached three reverts. Secret account 22:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Hi. It looks like you are going to be taking a break. When you get back I'd like to chat about the notability infrastructure. You seem pretty well experienced and I'd like to find out why we are comming to different conclusions on the right approach. Have a great holiday! --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yea would do when I get the time. Thanks Secret account 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Rochester Institute of Technology Model Railroad Club
Hi Secret. I would like to ask you to reverse your closure of Articles for deletion/Rochester Institute of Technology Model Railroad Club. The article was modified during the discussion, which I pointed out as the final comment on the page, but no one ever went back to look at the article again to see if it was improved. Furthermore, I believe the established standard of "multiple reliable sources" was ignored in this discussion for no good reason, and thus that those arguments should have been given less weight in the analysis.

For example: Cirt's reasoning was that it was a) unsourced, b) non-notable, and c) original research.  The revisions made to the article invalidated at least two and possibly all three of those arguments.  It was no longer unsourced, which also meant it was no longer original research.  Notability might still be an issue, but I believe it's established by precedent due to the multiple reliable sources that were found.

jj37 simply referenced Cirt's reasoning, and so that !vote is called into similar question.

LonleyBeacon never responded to my additional question and request for clarification; LB's objection was that the D&C articles were not primarily about the club, but the policy he quoted says only that coverage must be "more than trivial", which said articles demonstrably are. That objection to LB's reasoning was never addressed.

Storkk had similar concerns, but yet still only said "Weak Delete".

Bearian had no opinion on the main club article.

DGG mentioned only that "[a] single writeup in a hobbyist publication is not sufficient notability", which is true, except DGG apparently ignored the other reliable sources, and never responded to my question pointing that out.

So in my opinion, each of the delete !votes are either weak or have remaining unresolved questions. I don't think there was a clear consensus for deletion in that discussion.

Thanks for your time. Powers T 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Take it to DRV, I just don't see the significant improvement, the sources listed are way too trivial mentions, and it still reads like an advert for the club. Secret account 20:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As you wish. Powers T 20:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hey there! Thanks very much for your support in my recent RFA, which was successful. I was humbled by the support I received, and will do my best to live up to it by using the tools wisely and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Green Chri$tma$"
I'm not the original author of the entry, but I am the person who established it under its correct name (the S's as dollar signs).

As far as I can decipher the reasons for the deletion, they are that the article was "unsourced, non-notable, boosterism/ad". I don't remember the article exactly, so in its absence, for the moment I won't argue with the "unsourced". If that's a problem, I can provide better sourcing.

As for the other two reasons, I believe they apply to it no more than to articles on Simpsons characters or episodes.

Could this deletion be reviewed? Thanks.

Zgystardst (talk) 06:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD restore Secret account 13:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Captain Proton question

 * Secret, I was looking back over the Captain Proton deletion and noted that when you closed/deleted the article, you did so stating "Keep section didn't have one policy based reason". Looking over it, though, the Delete camp cited no policies either and the overall consensus was mixed with a lean toward Keep. I had thought (read it somewhere on Wikiedia IIRC) that the default action was keep in situations like this where there's no clear consensus and no clearcut policy rule. The only thing quoted/linked was the guideline Reliable Sources. Right now, I'm in a discussion that is eerily similar to the concerns regarding the Captain Proton page, but with less notability. Regardless, it may be notable within the highly-notable master topic, just as (for example) Section 31 is to Star Trek or The Adventures of Captain Proton is to Star Trek: Voyager. There appears to be a major lack of consistency and we're trying to figure out how to go about this on future articles (and personally I still hold out hope that the Captain Proton "decision" will be reversed eventually). Thank you in advance for helping me understand the reasoning. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

New user log
Hello, I was cleaning up some links from this per the MfD. Can you add New user log/November 2007 and New user log/December 2007 in the archives section and then blank those comments off of the page. Regards.-- 12 N oo  n  2¢ 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I did not realize you were away until after I posted this - I'll just do an on the talk page. Regards.-- 12 N  oo  n  2¢ 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:RB
Is your sports cards offer still good on the WP:RB? Tyrone Wheatley is coming up in the queue at WP:GAC--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IRC
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Minor" edit?
Deletion of an entire section of an article (such as the trivia section from Cleveland Indians) is NOT a minor edit. Please don't mark them as such. Also, please see WP:TRIVIA for more information about trivia sections. --Dachannien TalkContrib 05:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I know about WP:TRIVIA, but that if there is something to merge, I do mark reverts as minor edits as long as most of my edits, the only time I don't mark anything as minor edits is if I add content to an article, or if I deal with wikipedia mainspace. I know how to edit, and I know all thos policies, I been in this project since 2005, don't need to remind me. Secret account 21:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your block of a malicious user
Secret, I want to thank you for indefinitely blocking the user Jjj222 and all his/her various and sundry sockpuppets. This person is by far the most malicious vandal I've seen, in that his persistence is extraordinary. One potential problem is that the anonymous IP address that he uses, 68.173.209.19 was only blocked for one month, set to elapse in the second week of January. If you will look at this IP addresses talk page, you'll see that it has a long history of being blocked for persistent vandalism. I implore you to please permanently block this IP address, as this user has shown in the past that if given the slightest amount of leniency, he/she will abuse it to no end. This user has almost led me to give up Wikipedia entirely, and I've been around in one form or another from the very beginning. Life has been so much better for me and everyone who edits baseball since you banned this person - please, continue the peace and productive editing by permanently banning this IP address. Thank you, and Happy New Year, Googie man (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

IPs can't be blocked indef unless it's a open proxy, which this isn't Secret account 19:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Titanic (1997 film)
Hello, Secret. If you look here and here, you'll see the brief discussion that took place about your having redirected the List of characters in Titanic (1997 film) article to Titanic (1997 film), which provides the reason why I restored that article. I understand your reason for having redirected that article, and if I don't get a good chance to fix up that article soon, then, of course, put that article up for a deletion debate again. For now, however, I ask you to allow more time for its improvement. I'll see you around. Flyer22 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That is the reason why I redirected instead of re AFD it, it's loaded with speculation, WP:NOR, etc. I wanted someone to clean it up without lossing the history. I'll re AFD in a month if it isn't improved. Thanks Secret account 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Legend of Blue-Eyes White Dragon AfD
You stated that you were nominating all the articles in the associated template. However, you did not list the articles in the AfD or tag the articles and direct editors to the centralised discussion. So for now I am only deleting the article listed. I suggest you create another AfD for the remainder, and refer to this one as a precedent. --Stephen 08:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That was my fault, I had to work after that AFD, couldn't tag them all, and I don't use autoscripts. I'm now semi-active. Thanks Secret account 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
-Djsasso (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for pestering, but....
Could you please let me know where you stand with my request from "Your block of a malicious user", above? Thanks, Googie man (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Template vandal.
Yeah, first I thought it could have been an accident... then I thought "no way lol". Majorly beat me to the block though. I saw it too. :( · AndonicO  Hail!  23:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Game Deception article
Hi, first of all, please excuse my grammar and spelling, English is not my native language so sometimes things get a bit messed up.

Now back to business:

How can you say that Game Deception (referred to as G-D from now) does not assert significance?

Nearly *every* cheat available to any game, online or not is made either by knowledge found on G-D or by persons that write topics on G-D. (okay im exaggerating but a significant amount of them).

The article goes hand in hand with the Cheating in Online Games article, and if PunkBuster warrants an article, so should G-D.

It's a website that's been here since the beginning, where anyone who would like to get into game hacking, or just advanced programming should go.

There's 9,737 threads, 76,833 posts and 16,752 members, with over 266 people visiting the forums the last 24 hours i'd say it's a website of some significance.

Further more, the article is also being rewritten as we speak, being formed by the very members of G-D.

It's a great community, though slightly elitist. Anyone that shows the will to learn and has a decent level knowledge of programming (beginners also get helped, but they wont be spoon fed) will be more than accepted.

If you still feel it's not significant, you should also know that G-D is the home to a lot of "well known" hacks up trough the years, you could discover this by browsing the forum for a while if interested :)

I wish you could undelete this article so we can once again Edit the page and shed some light on this great game hacking community.

I would say G-D is the very tip of the sword when it comes to game hacking.

Just take a look here:

This is the tutorial section which is full of game related tutorials and guides.

This is the Half Life 2 Client Hook section as you can see from all the sticky threads, it contains pretty much *everything* you can do in the game as far as game hacking (ofcourse new things will be discovered, but if/when they do i'm 100% sure that's coming from G-D).

Hope you can take these things into consideration, if not i would like to discuss this more.

PS:

We know the article wasn't that great, but it's being rewritten to be better. And there's a IRC channel @ irc.rizon.net #game-deception, if you wish to talk to some members.

I am by far a known person (I'm rather new actually), but i feel G-D deserves a spot here at wikipedia as it *does* exist, and it *is* the best source and website available about game hacking. I'm sure many members on IRC far more experienced than me can tell you this too.

Just present yourself and say hi, we won't bite..

-kek

148.83.128.14 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article was not all *that* good, but the site is not unsignificant at all when it comes to online game cheating. the matter could at least be discussed before deleting the article right away.--87.178.127.29 (talk) 10:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WEB Secret account 19:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Art Houtteman and Gene Conley
Sounds fun. I got a free weekend, so I should be able to get a really nice article going. Wizardman 00:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate vote
Just a quick note to tell you have supported Requests for adminship/Keilana under #107, however you have opposed on #03, you may wish to fix this... Qst 15:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion reviews
An editor has asked for a deletion review of St. Paul Greek Orthodox Church. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John254 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Pittsburgh Bulldogs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. John254 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Improper speedy deletions
Please do not continue to make inappropriate speedy deletions, as you did to and. Thank you. John254 17:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Churchs are A7 group, and the Bulldogs are A7 as well team/club, nothing inappropiate about that. Secret account 18:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Envox article
Hello, I'm writing regarding the Envox Worldwide article that was deleted at the beginning of December 2007 and the comment below:

"The result was delete, while the article was improved, Smerdis of Tlön is right, and those changes weren't formed, I'll be happy to undelete and place it on a user subpage for the editor to improve on the article. Secret account 23:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)"

If you would please go ahead and undelete the article and place it on a user subpage as noted above it will be re-edited for your review. Thank you, Turkucken (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Turkucken

What!
There are no attacks which have been made! I treat other users with more respect than they treat me. You should not made such falsehoods about people, as it is a thing called slander.

Anyway, if you had me blocked from editing, a lot of articles and images would be at extreme risk of dying. And I don't care what you claim I did; the articles and images matter ten times more than the feelings of a few users. Freedom of speech, User:Secret. Freedom of Speech. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

My beautiful black rose, I merely stated a fact. I am the one behind his so-called trauma. I am the one who nearly drove him off the edge. I am the one who instigated several edit wars with him (though they all were truced in the end). I am the one who brought him back again after I realized I was wrong. I think, however, that he is still a little disturbed. But dear, if it makes you unhappy, I shall stop saying such about him. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Robin Graham page deletion (October 22, 2007)
I have only just noticed that this page which I spent a great deal of time researching has been deleted due to the alleged "lack of importance" of Robin Graham.

I disagree.

Robin's disappearance changed California Highway Patrol policy toward stranded female motorists; her disappearance has been examined by a number of television programs over the years. But because she predates the internet and newspapers online (even the L.A. Times articles aren't available through their online archives), she is dismissed.

I don't see how she is *less* important than Donna Lass, the woman who preceded her on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_disappeared page (which has ALSO been edited to remove Robin Graham).

Many people have speculated through the years that Robin was also a victim of the Zodiac Killer; doesn't that put on equal footing with Lass? LynnMaudlin (talk) 06:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you WP:CITE those with reliable sources, in the article, it wasn't mentioned that it did all these stuff, just another murder. Secret account 13:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

On Robin's page I did cite newspaper articles; unfortunately when it's through "NewspaperARCHIVE.com" it's not an open source and one has to register and pay a small amount of money to access the pages. I was under the impression I'd saved all those pages on my computer but it turns out that NewspaperARCHIVE.com doesn't actually allow you to save the salient bits (grrrr - and it takes time to save those pages!)

Without buying another membership from these guys, I can tell you the Long Beach Press Telegram - NewspaperArchive - Jan 8, 1974 - contains an article about the CHP policy changes stemming from this event. Google's search stream was: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=CHP+policy+changes+robin+graham&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1970&as_hdate=1979&lnav=d4&hdrange=1993,2007

There was a fair amount of L.A. Times coverage but I couldn't access it (I can head down to the library and search the microfiche although *new* they now have the articles "for sale" online but, again, they won't be visible to anybody else wanting to access them without also paying for them) and then a lot of local articles and interviews and the CHP trying to explain why they didn't stop to help the girl, etc. Google search which now pulls up L.A. Times articles: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=robin+graham+freeway+disappearance+1970+&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1

If you can look at the page as I wrote it and check the reference links I put in, perhaps there's enough there to convince you to the notability of this person. I am reluctant but willing (cost-to-value ratio) to re-up with NewspaperARCHIVE.com although I don't know what good *that* does since the links will be like the one(s) I already put in the page. Or at least let me know what kind of citations you would find adequate, considering this is the internet. Thanks LynnMaudlin (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for further info from you-- LynnMaudlin (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ilonka Karasz page
Hello,

I see that the Ilonka Karasz page has been deleted with a code indicated copyright infringement because similar text is on a page related to the Georgia Museum of Art. I am the author of both that text and the text submitted to Wikipedia and I am an employee of the Georgia Museum of Art and author of the only book on Ilonka Karasz (published by the Georgia Museum of Art). Can you please put the Ilonka Karasz page back on Wikipedia?

Thanks,

Ashley Callahan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki73green (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to communicate the WP:OTRS to release it to the GFDL. Thanks Secret account 01:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Smitty4802

 * | [ give rollback ]
 * Reverting vandalism Smitty (talk)
 * Fixing request. Nakon 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer someone with more experience to request the tool, sorry. Maybe with more edits, ❌. Secret account 01:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you reconsider this one? The vandalism reversions were good, and marked as such. Viridae Talk 01:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer someone with enough of an edit history to have rollback, to check if he's trusted. For me 37 edits, including about 20 mainspace, isn't enough experience for rollback. Sorry Secret account 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, fair enough. Viridae Talk 01:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
You approved me for rollback but in the log it says none to none shouldn't it be none to rollbacker, cause I'm not getting the rollback link, thanks. Oysterguitarist 03:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA
High praise indeed, and it's nice to be noticed. I'd certainly like to take a shot at RfA, and will probably do so within the next few weeks, or so. My only concern is that my mainspace conributions are a little thin, but I'm willing to stand on the merits and see what happens. Though I don't plan to canvass, I will let you know if and when I make the request. Again, thanks for the kind words. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 04:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?
It appears to be moot now, but do be cautious about granting rollback in the future. You granted rollback to CastAStone four minutes after his request was posted; please allow a little more time in the future (if the process remains at all similar to what was there before).

You might have been misled by the endorsement by Merovingian; he was adding 'support' notices to all of the candidates on the page without doing any review. (Merovingian endorsed CastAStone less than a minute after CastAStone's request was posted; he's being rather WP:POINTy.) Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I had prior experiences with CastAStone, and I never had any concerns, I admit I was looking though his edits a few days back, checking if he was suitable for adminship. Thanks Secret account 04:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Secret, I promise to only use the tool for good. I also appreciate the complement regarding adminship; I'm still at least a thousand edits short of the experience needed as I'm still discovering features of the site I'd never heard of. I hope you didn't find anything you didn't like in your search...--CastAStone//(talk) 17:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Tata Nano
Shouldn't you discuss before making this edit? --MAJones (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I did just right now Secret account 02:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Improvement of My Anime List article after speedy deletion
okay the article I had written for My Anime List was deleted without discussion. fair enough. On its talk page however I had asked why it deserves to be deleted as opposed to a similar page with less references, namely AniDB. If you could point out to me what aniDB has that my article lacks that would be greatly helpful to me when improving my article. Thanks. Kei-clone (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:WEB, and WP:RS Secret account 04:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of an artical about MeeMix
Hey there,

I noticed that you have deleted the article I submitted about MeeMix. This is my first submission so I may have made some errors.

However the reason given was that the article was an advertisement for a site. As I know Wiki is not a place for that kind of articles I made sure to give my neutral and factual impression of the service and its nature.

I think that the sites has redefined musical taste prediction abilities beyond the web and there for wrought about it.

Please let me know what did you see as advertisement and why does the works on MeeMix as a new way of predicting taste not relevant to Wikipedia?

Thanks, Meron —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeronSholman (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't deleted because of spam, I deleted it because it failed WP:WEB Secret account 22:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your replay. I have rewrote the definition and would love to get your impute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeronSholman (talk • contribs) 10:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed prod on Marlins top Draft picks
I have removed the prod tag from Marlins top Draft picks, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! --  At am a chat 01:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Detroit Tigers nicknames
You marked this as an Unsourced list. User:Cbl62 removed your tag. I'm not sure if that was appropriate. The sources were already there in the article, actually, but they weren't showing up correctly because of the syntax. I've been working on cleaning up the syntax. I'm just informing you that the sources are there. Kingturtle (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hey I had a question to ask you, i was looking through your list of articles that you created or expanded, and on a couple of the pages i couldn't find your name in the history at all. Greg Landry, and Joe Page are a couple ones i noticed. So i was just wandering what was up with that. Hatmatbbat10 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Just click on the original author userpage, and you'll see why (per privaty concerns) Secret account 19:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

All of them written of my first account, I'm trying to get the edits transfered here. Secret account 19:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Okay, than help me.

How do I find vandalism? -- HP Jo  ker  Leave me a message 21:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your watchlist or WP:RC would help. Secret account 22:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Watchlist. Never have experimented with that. Only have my archives on there. How do I use that? Remember I just got the tool and am new to this whole thing.
 * Also, what do I look for in recent changes? -- HP Jo  ker  Leave me a message 22:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist articles that you are interested on, and if you see a suspitious edit, check if it's vandalism, the way you watchlist articles is my clicking the watch tab on a top of an article. As for RC, same thing, click recent changes, and if you see something suspitious, click on the dif then check if it's vandalism and rollback. Secret account 22:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

James Chester
Thank you for being so stringent with the notability criteria laid down at WP:BIO. However, per a recent (archived) discussion at WP:FOOTY, a footballer is now notable if he has been given a squad number by his club for a competition of at least national repute. However, if he fails to make an appearance by the end of the season, or he is not given a squad number for the next season, his notability may be brought into question. – PeeJay 23:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Wittmack
Hi. The page Charlie Wittmack was recreated -- by the same user with basically the same text -- after you deleted it earlier today (then named Charles Wittmack). Should I just CSD tag it again? &mdash;Noah 01:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm just learning Wikipedia. I believe the page Charlie Wittmack is within the guidelines of Wiki. He is the first Iowan to summit Everest, as shown here. If you agree please undelete.Nealmueller (talk) 05:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Response on Robin Graham page
On Robin's page I did cite newspaper articles; unfortunately when it's through "NewspaperARCHIVE.com" it's not an open source and one has to register and pay a small amount of money to access the pages. I was under the impression I'd saved all those pages on my computer but it turns out that NewspaperARCHIVE.com doesn't actually allow you to save the salient bits (grrrr - and it takes time to save those pages!)

Without buying another membership from these guys, I can tell you the Long Beach Press Telegram - NewspaperArchive - Jan 8, 1974 - contains an article about the CHP policy changes stemming from this event. Google's search stream was: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=CHP+policy+changes+robin+graham&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1970&as_hdate=1979&lnav=d4&hdrange=1993,2007

There was a fair amount of L.A. Times coverage but I couldn't access it (I can head down to the library and search the microfiche although *new* they now have the articles "for sale" online but, again, they won't be visible to anybody else wanting to access them without also paying for them) and then a lot of local articles and interviews and the CHP trying to explain why they didn't stop to help the girl, etc. Google search which now pulls up L.A. Times articles: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=robin+graham+freeway+disappearance+1970+&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&um=1

If you can look at the page as I wrote it and check the reference links I put in, perhaps there's enough there to convince you to the notability of this person. I am reluctant but willing (cost-to-value ratio) to re-up with NewspaperARCHIVE.com although I don't know what good *that* does since the links will be like the one(s) I already put in the page. Or at least let me know what kind of citations you would find adequate, considering this is the internet. Thanks LynnMaudlin (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for further info from you-- LynnMaudlin (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC) Ditto - LynnMaudlin (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I undeleted it a few days back Secret account 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

--doh!-- Thanks; I will improve citations to be more consistent with Wikipedia guidelines LynnMaudlin (talk) 23:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackie Towery speedied
Hi. I see you speedied the Blackie Towery article on Jan. 8. I dug up some sources and re-started it. (And there's much more I can say about the guy; I'll try to expand the article later.) In the future, if you see any substub NBA bios, just send them my way instead of deleting them on sight. I can usually find enough info to build a decent article after a few minutes of searching. Zagalejo^^^ 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, anyways the article I deleted just gave some stats and couldn't tell what it really was, obvious A1. Thanks Secret account 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea I just noticed the Position: F-C, my fault Secret account 21:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do with the Shason article. It might be tougher, as it's on an Israeli player. Thanks for letting me know, though. Zagalejo^^^ 22:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I can access the Jerusalem Post with Newsbank, and there are some other articles available online. I should be able to clean it up a little bit. I'll get to it sometime later tonight. Zagalejo^^^ 22:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, my offer only stands with regard to NBA bios. I can't guarantee that I can do much for bios of international players, since the relevant sources may not be available online (or in a language I can understand). Zagalejo^^^ 09:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of UAlbany Student Association
Why was it deleted??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by R ingber (talk • contribs) 23:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

bars and clubs on Capitol Hill, Seattle
I see you've prod'd List of bars and clubs on Capitol Hill, Seattle. Could you please see my comment at Talk:List of bars and clubs on Capitol Hill, Seattle and reply there? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 03:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Myanmar Women's Affairs Federation‎
Why did they delete this article Myanmar Women's Affairs Federation‎ ? I wrote this artile with my word but delete. why--Ekyaw (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ORG Secret account 23:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC) Hey do u need notibility? This organizationi is one of the leading organization in Myanmar for Myanmar Women affair. They have many activities. Search for it. Why do u delete? Did u know this organization? If you want to know more about it you must search in WWW and The World Women affair organization and ASEAN womean affair organizatin. Thank you.--Ekyaw (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Again WP:ORG, and WP:RS, Secret account 18:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
John Carter (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A technical question
On the Joe Klein AfD debate you write in part, "Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page...." My question is exactly how can people write on a discussion page of an article that's been deleted?  There were a couple of comments on the discussion page and those are now gone. --NBahn (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Link to AFD please. Secret account 02:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Here. --NBahn (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh thats a template in which all AFDs are closed with, which means any further comment about the AFD goes to the talk page. Secret account 02:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I see; thank you for the courtesy of your reply. --NBahn (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)