User talk:Autocracy/Archive 1

Audiosparx
Hi...did you delete the "AudioSparx" page I added yesterday and again today? AudioSparx was the very first ecommerce digital audio site on the Internet, so it has historical significance. While I am definitely affiliated with it, the information in the article is entirely relevant. If you think AudioSparx should not be present in Wikipedia, then please explain to me why SoundDogs is permitted to be present.

Thanks,

Quinn Coleman quinn@navarr.net
 * Yes, I did mark those for deletion, though somebody else (I know not who) performed the actual removal. The page you bring up for Sounddogs seems to merit some review. I'm trying to wade through precendents right now on company deletion, and will likely mark that page to be deleted with discussion. Based on what's up there, I'm not sure it belongs either. If it is kept, then I suggest you re-create Audiosparx. Please be mindful of the format and content of the page if you do recreate, however. I do recall it sounding distinctly Advertising Material like... actually, from previewing I can see you've already re-created it. Autocracy 18:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Just thought I'd let you know: Having run across the Sounddogs page at random, I've nuked most of it (the POV-ish parts, at least). I have also removed the {prod} tag because of the rewriting. Ourai т с 22:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Autocracy, I'm still scratching my head about the deletion of AudioSparx page but the continuing existence of the SoundDogs page. I'm new to wikipedia so I'm trying to learn as quickly as I can how things work here. Now I see that recreation of the AudioSparx page has been blocked, however, the SoundDogs page has not been deleted. I based the structure of the AudioSparx page almost exactly like the SoundDogs page, since I'm just learning how to work Wikipedia and figured I would use an existing model only as a starting point. Can you help me? AudioSparx.com (aka UltimateSoundArchive.com) was the first ever site on the Internet to sell digital audio download content (Aug. 1996) - in the scheme of man's progress, that is a historically significant achievement worthy of mention in this encyclopedia of knowledge. unsigned comment of User:Qdogquinn

The user noted above did some cleanup on it, which removed my original reason for marking it for deletion. Right now, though, it is being discussed to reach a concensus about whether the article should be kept. My suggestion to you is this: If Sounddogs survives its deletion review, or you have strong notable sources (newspapers, independent trade mags, "who's who" entry...), I'll try and step up to bat for you. Consider also that incorporation information, etc. may be helpful (must be filed so it can be verified with the record keeping source). Keep in mind I can't promise anything, but as you can see here, I do make all the effort I can to bring up an issue that I believe has merit of at least discussion. As you can also see, sometimes these issues get very heated... Autocracy 07:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Write the article for Audiosparx sounding closer to the current "de-advertised" Sounddogs page.
 * Do whatever you can to find press articles, mentions by other websites, etc.

Comment on "Vandalism" left by anon-ip User
Don't vandalize Wikipedia. It's not nice, nor polite.
 * I reverted a wide swath of edits by an IP user in a touchy topic, and had this message posted while I was reviewing in greater detail. Said IP user's changes do appear benificial, but he beat me to reverting them anyway, apparently with a very, very fast scolding (automated tool?). Autocracy 21:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Further note and afterthought: anon-ip user had been blocked twice this year, including 36 hours ago. Shot first, examined later... Autocracy 21:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Block
I have blocked you for a period of 48 hours for Articles for deletion/International Talk Like a Pirate Day which is a clear violation of Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point in regards to "Steak and Blowjob Day."— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Based upon what to me was a clear concensus in "Steak and Blowjob Day" that it should stay deleted, I moved to discuss Internatlonal Talk Like a Pirate Day as the same logic applied to that as the previous article in question. In the short time it was in AfD, one user pointed out a tool from Google I wasnt familiar with which brought up relevant articles which should be cited in the international Talk Like a Pirate Day page. Please see my User:Autocracy page before the block noting that I myself intend to go in and fix the references.

I cede the point what I did can be construed as being against Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, though marginally so and debatable (specifically, it says "Don't post 100 articles to AfD to prove the point of saving your one article." One article that was tied to a debate and lacked hard sources seems to be a fair thing to discuss.)

Preserved unblock request text
Citing the above paragraph of my talk page, I contest that the admin's action was to directly block me. I have recieved no direct communication from him other than this block, despite posting on his talk page, a talk page of a user he blocked before the editing of any of these articles began, and of course the availability of my own talk page. Please see another particular user's comment already posted at User_talk:Ryulong. I further charge that Ryulong's actions are against WP:AGF, lacks a basis under WP:BLOCK, and even is noted as bad practice under WP:BLOCK: "Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia." ... and finally of violating No angry mastodons, having had no discussion with me about the matter and using the block button immediately. originally declined: Clear violation of WP:POINT. — Yamla 18:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait a sec. WP:NAM is an essay.  I encourage people to read it and emulate its ideas, but it's not really possible to violate an essay.  Durova Charge! 04:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I'd still call it good sense. I'll make a mental note to try and check the boxes up top instead of having my eyes skip to the text. Many years on the internet, and you get good at failing to acknowledge such boxes exist as they contain ads 99% of the time. I still think there should be no angry mastodons :) -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Continuing arguments and unblocking
I'd llike to further note the controversy over his 3rd and finally successful Nomination for Adminship, specifically the question posed by User:Newyorkbrad and the conflict between Ryulong's response there less than two months ago, and his actions in this matter. Autocracy 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with this block either. I'm considering lifting it, but I'd like to first wait for a response from Ryulong, so please be patient for a moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I did state this block at WP:ANI, and citing my RfA is really ABFish. It's not going to be a black mark on my actions here, as was stated repeatedly at WT:RFA (archive dig, go!). While I now realize that this whole block is a slight grey-area in WP:POINT's reading (which was then RfD'd as a WP:POINT violation, amazing isn't it?). I would not object to an unblocking after...however many hours it has now been.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Citing your RfA is on point to my defense in a case of immediate blocking. It is also citing a pattern of action over a period of time. More than anything else, I still have no reason to believe that the block made was in anyway upholding the spirit of this site. Even blatant vandalism gets a first warning, and usually a shorter block than was given me. Talk first, block only to prevent clear intent to continue acting with disregard. Certainly don't block to smack people over single-count contradictions to WP pages. Autocracy 07:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've unblocked you. Just be careful that "picking fights [...] to better determine precident" is often not considered a very constructive way of doing things here. There are usually less confrontational ways of gauging where consensus is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You
Why do you feel this article is not encyclopedic. A dictionary will only give a definition where as an encyclopedic article such as You talks about its origins, uses, and similarity in other languages. Mkdw talk 08:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The presented with the points raised in that AfD, I agree with the consensus to keep the article. Just learning my way around the system :) Autocracy 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But surprisingly, a few posters there think your original nomination for deletion was right.--Ron Ritzman 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it does seem to me that there has been a very strong current of "words don't belong as articles," which is what left me believing there was cause to at least discuss deletion. I'd like to think that any article I bring for discussion, there would be enough logical reason there would be bound to be at least some people to agree. Autocracy 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably why "The" was up for deletion last month. Result was a redirect to Article_(grammar). Oh well, time to write an article for Eat_steak_while_talking_like_a_pirate_getting_a_blowjob_day. --Ron Ritzman 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit man! Autocracy 07:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

CHANGE: I've re-read Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary, particuarly the Dictionary versus Encyclopedia part. Foreign language discussion doesn't seem to be justification, and everything ellse goes against it being encyclopedic. Autocracy 19:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Stop Editing (Vandalism by IP User)
you stupid a-hole, stop editing stuff on wikipedia, your going to get this whole school banned, about your stupid arguments about some fcuking naruto character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.240.49.132 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see this IP users's talk page. I think my comment was nowhere near hostile, and the record of that page warrants me leaving no further comment. Autocracy 17:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sig
It's how I can find my comments easily. I like my sig. I don't believe there is a rule against it. I'm sorry if it bothers you, it isn't my intention to annoy other editors with it, but I don't think that I should change it because people just don't care for it. (I'll de-colorize it for your talk page though) Bignole 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just politely asking... I'll respect your decision fully :) Autocracy 23:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Model farms high school
I do not believe i have vandilised the Model farms high school.My edit was a good edit and i consider your comment a personal attack.The information i provided is accruate.I am more than happy to use dispute resoulation to resolve this dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Private10 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Does everybody else simply remove this kind of stuff from their talk page, or do I simply attract a higher ration of it? User's talk page and contrib history cover all I have to say on the issue Auto cracy 01:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI, Private10 has started an AMA case. +A.0u 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was reading that before the vandalism I reverted, and wondering if there was some lace I could comment on how obviously... futile that case was. I didn't, he vandalised again, and I don't think there's a person there who would let that hold more water than a thimble gone through a garbage dipsoal. Auto cracy 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hrm... should I report Private10 to WP:AIV for vandalizing past his final warning? I'm not familiar with AMA protocol, so I'm not sure if I should wait for an advocate to end the case...but I guess this is a case of Ignore All Rules. +A.0u 02:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I put him on AIV about 20 minutes ago now. Must just be a slow night for them to get to it. This is definitely a case where if I hadn't put him up already, I'd say you should definitely have done it yourself. Auto cracy 02:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to find that page that says "No legal threats on Wikipedia" (but...how am I going to be sued? Nobody here knows who I am in real life). Where are those advocates? +A.0u 02:20, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No legal threats anyway, advocacy doesn't move fast. Might be a few days before they read it. Somebody pulled my listing off AIV without intervention or comment, so I'm waiting now to see if he strikes again. Auto cracy 02:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect my listing was pulled off by the bot since I used the "user" template instead of the "vandal" template by mistake. He's started editing again, so I listed him again. Auto cracy 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the userpage revert. -→ Buchanan-Hermit™ / ?! 04:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very welcome. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 04:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Computerman45)
Thanks for watching my back. I would have caught it sooner or later. That's twice now someone has vandalized my page. XD
 * I accept chocolate chip cookies as gifts :) -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 17:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How about a list in a new page I am creating? I gotta keep my Wikipedia Friendlist somewhere don't I? Computerman45 21:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No complaints there.... just saw you beat me to busting another vandal, btw. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 21:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha. Guess this means a mutual friendship for the better of Wikipedia! And you beat me to another one as well. ;D New userpage can be found at: User:Computerman45/Wikipedian Friends Computerman45 21:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping
Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your help and for the barnstar - that's my first! ;) +A.0u 00:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please give Aussie Pete time on the List of Australian films once completed they will CLEARLY serve more than a category. THanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Aussie Pete was indeed the creator of the Australian film lists but I am also from WikiProject Films and am making sure we have a full list with all the cast/release details by country. Thanks anyway ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 17:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

User:71.133.46.40
I was going to go for a 24 hour block, but on 20th Feb it recieved a 7 days block, so thats why I gave it another 7 days instead of a more drstic 1 month ban, would you like it shortened to 24 hours though? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just providing the information in case you weren't aware. I'll leave it up to you to determine what's most appropriate. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 21:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * shortened to 31 hours, does that seam fair? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'l give this snowball about an hour
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak_and_a_Blowjob_Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_14 --Ron Ritzman 21:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I signed my concensus to close a few days ago. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But should we perhaps go ahead and submit this new version to AFD right now so it gets a new discussion. --Ron Ritzman 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I copied it to this Ghost Wikipedia --Ron Ritzman 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, wow.... looks like I would have been better off trying to rewrite that than starting from the previous deletion. No wonder it got canned last time :-/ -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 02:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm wrong about this but I think you are missing the point that S&BJ_Day is LIVE NOW.--Ron Ritzman 02:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and truly, I'm glad that it's been done -- but the reasons the DRV failed are indeed the same reasons this article isn't enough. I think the proper answer is to get some very angry feminists to protest in public so it'll make a New York Times article. Then we'll have a reliable source and can defend the posting. There's definitely a few facebook groups in protest (of all the things to be upset about). -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would the feminists be upset, where does it say that the women necessarily have to be the ones giving the blowjobs?--Ron Ritzman 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also posted the speedy delete myself. My question is why you removed it from the calendar yourself.... doesn't meet article criteria, but I might be willing to pick a second fight for calendar worthiness ;) -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 02:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe I shouldn't have but I assumed it would have been removed eventually. Feel free to add it back if you want to fight for it. BTW I know it's probably not correct procedure but if someone does the "hangon" thing you might want to consider moving it to AFD to give the new editors a shot.--Ron Ritzman 03:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Good news
It looks like you are going to be staying around for a while. Er then again you did make the nom so it might be bad news --Ron Ritzman 01:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Good news it was discussed and a concensus determined. Doesn't make me feel a bit of bad. Hopefully I'll personally be here for a long time :) -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 02:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Forgive me. I'm still trying to get out of the mindset that people nom articles for AFD because they personally want them gone.--Ron Ritzman 02:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Steak and a Blowjob Day
Hey there,

Thanks for the note. I wish I'd come across the discussion for deletion of that page before I'd tried to make a reasonably wikified article out of it. I appreciate you taking the time to leave your words though. I'm not done fighting yet :-), but I'll try to find some sources before I go for it again. Thanks!

--Searles2sels (PJ) 14:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

5% Ownership
I noticed on the AfD for 5% Ownership that you said you wanted to be notified if this was closed as a merge to 10-K. Well, I just closed it as such. Thought you might want to know. Veinor (talk to me) 20:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Roitr Sockpuppetry / Russian Military stuff
I'm trying to work on his sockpuppetry as well. Anonymous IP 82.81.48.207 seems to be removing speedy notices, and fits the block registered to his ISP. Reporting for checkuser. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not going to get us anywhere, he can change his IPs every couple of minutes by a simple log off/log on :( The only viable solution is a full block through entire range of Bezeq DSL services for the course of the evening, including new account creation, but I don't really think many admins would enforce this on a routine basis (well, maybe except for [ Netsnipe] :) ) --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Kudos to [ Ryulong] for blocking a large part of the range for entire month... plus, I've filed a request for a community ban, let's see what will come out this... --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I poked him in IRC with the info. He ended up wiping out a few /16s, I think it was. He'd prefer we get another admin for next time... I vote NetSnipe or Clown if they're home :) -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 22:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's do it... I take Netsnipe ;) --Dmitry (talk •contibs ) 22:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage revert
Very sorry for the delay, I've only just looked on my edit history, but thanks for removing the vandalsim! TheOne00 17:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:JanPalachMemorial.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:JanPalachMemorial.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Will Smith
I dunno if I am doing this right, but I was having problems with the spam filter about something that was already in the Will Smith, not something I was adding, it just ended up being a mass edit fest on my part to fix it :(.

He's not dead? I found that on a news site thing. unsigned comment by User:KillerDreaming


 * Well, I checked Google News, and I figure if I don't find anything by searching for his name, he's probably still breathing. Feel free to point out the news source to me, but I suspect he's still alive. I also had the same problem reverting the page, so I understand -- that was quite unexpected, annoying, and not your fault. Besides the wrong information, you did manage to get it on the page correctly. Just avoid copy / pasting as well; for a full article, that's a copyright issue. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 02:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'm sorry for the mess-up again, I'll read about it more and return here to report to you, sorry again bro.
 * Edit: Do you have MSN or AIM? I wanna talk to you there for a bit. KillerDreaming 02:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Join the wikipedia irc channel. Server is irc.freenode.net and channel is Wikipedia. If you don't have an IRC client, you can go to java.freenode.net and make sure that you put #wikipedia as the channel, along with a username of your choice. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Jordan
I removed it again. We're trying to keep the size down and because it's Michael Jordan in order to keep it from being 100+ kbs things need to be discussed on the talk page first. There's already a lot of more important things left ouit. The line has to be drawn somewhere. Aaron Bowen 12:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Basically I've never really worked on the article I just voted on it during FAC (It's an FA) and beame worried that it would deteriorate over time due to cruft and indiscriminate adding of information, so I put it on my watchlist. I just want to keep it high quality so assume good faith. Aaron Bowen 12:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Masculism: Talk Edit
Hello.

The following was deleted from Talk:Masculism:

Title: Wikibullshit

From wikipedia masculism talk: ''In general, the preponderance of gender-balanced scientific and empirical evidence consistently finds no significant differences (i.e. > 4%) between the sexes in any of human nature's most fundamental attributes. In other words, males and females are equally intelligent, achievement-oriented, emotional/empathic, compassionate/loving, phsically/psychologically violent, dominant/aggressive, and so forth overall. The sexes certainly tend to express these most basic underlying characteristics very differently on the surface, but these equalize themselves as well. Thus, every positive or negative quality exhibited in one of the sexes is inevitably offset by a similar trait in the other sex.''
 * Sounds like feminazi rant to me. Do we have a citation for this?  I just read in TIME not long ago that men scored higher than women on standardized tests, etc.  If the femo-communists that run TIME admit it themselves, then it must be true...  Salva 00:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read that the average score was the same, however males are more likely to be on the extreme (geniuses or idiots).:: And I assume you're being sarcastic about TIME being communist....
 * Yes, Salva, you're right- it is poorly masked feminazi garbage. (How could you possibly prove something like that? I mean, how could somebody possibly measure the average skills and abilities of an entire population?) The "Genius Idiot" statement is also right, statistically speaking. Robinson0120

End.

You are free to re-post it if you like. However, it is in direct opposition to the Wikipedia code of conduct. Phrases such as "femo-communists" and "feminazi" are gendered slurs and have no place on the Talk board. If the code of conduct does not apply to Talk pages, please let me know.--Tryingtoevolve 01:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It was reposted at the time I posted a notice on your talk page. I'm kind of on the fence about whether to accept your argument that they're gender slurs, or a class of thought comment (e.g. neo-cons). I'm going to consider posting this to RfC myself at a later point just to get some idea of community consensus so I have some future guidance. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 15:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardy Boys Pages
(Copied from User talk:DESiegel).

While the articles are sparse, there is no reason that ultimately there can't be a well written article for each book. One thing to consider is that we don't need to worry about "relative value" notability... basically per WP:PAPER. Let's not kill the snowman by throwing out the first few flakes. If you do post these articles into AfD, please notify me on my talk page so I may contribute my arguments there. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 00:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to see what would be in such articles beyond a plot summery, and as per WP:FICT such articles are not good. I think that a long list of basically similar books such as this are much better served in a single central article rather than lots of tiny stubs. Please recall that I am the person who did the merge on Aubrey–Maturin series, merging 20 small separate articles into one large useful article -- and IMO there is far more to say in an article about one of those individual books than about one of the Hardy Boys volumes.


 * I Have nominated these articles for Proposed Deletion, because I thought they technically didn't comply with WP:CSD although i was tempted to simply delete them. (People way over-use db-context IMO). If you chose to remove the prod tags, please let me know, so i can consider whether to AfD them. DES (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically note that WP:FICT says: "Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic". Just how much "real-world context and sourced analysis" do you expect to find on these works? DES (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I would deeply oppose speedy just by us both knowing the context (though he really should write in the context). I'm indecisive at the moment, and would rather the community decide than me trying to argue one way or the other as to the value of it. Would you please AfD that one page as a litmus for consensus? -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 01:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * AfD'd it myself. -- Auto ( talk / contribs ) 01:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded to the AfD. I agree that a speedy is not valid, which is why I didn't delete them on speedy (I found them while patroling for speedys). I said that I was "tempted" because I was sure that a delete would occur sooner or later by one process or another. I have long teneded to be strict about the WP:CSD DES (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)