User talk:Blanchardb/Archive 5

Careful on the trigger
A user you cautioned as a vandal for putting up a malformed page turned out to be an honest contributor in need of help writing his or her first article (see User_talk:ParadiseMissouri. If you see something odd like that coming from a user with a history of limited -- but good -- contributions, it's best to assume good faith and ask them what they are trying to do.  We need all the good contributors we can get; we don't want to scare them away or otherwise antagonize them as they learn the ropes.  Other than that, good work on Newpages Patrol.  You're beating me to a lot of speedy deletions.   --Dynaflow   babble  13:50, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

TeleSensory Systems
Hi again- I see you archived my last note to you without comment, and the notability/advert tags you placed are still on this article. I have added about a dozen references to address your notability concerns. It's hard to understand the advertising tag, since the products described in this article are historical and no longer in production. Please take another look and remove the tags if you are satisfied. If not, please let me know explicitly what you object to. Thanks Robsavoie (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The tag states that the article is written like an ad. That the company no longer exists makes no difference, actually. Additionally, the person to remove the tag I placed doesn't have to be me. Although it is poor etiquette to remove a tag placed on something you worked, you can do it if you make a serious attempt at correcting the situation. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer not to remove it myself for now. I'll look at a few other company articles to get ideas of how to improve it. Thanks for the help. Robsavoie (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Auricula Meretricula
I was wondering if you could check the article again for the two flags you left. Its my first article, so I don't want to remove the flags until someone who knows what they're doing gives a verbal on whether or not I've solved the article's issues Nercromancy? (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the issues have been adequately addressed.
 * First of all, "notability" is not an issue with the article itself, but rather with its topic. Like all encyclopedias, Wikipedia requires that all of its articles be about subjects that have a minimum of notoriety. One of the authors only gets four hits on Google, one of which is your article. As it is currently written, the article does not assert that its subject meets the minimum notability requirements for books. A section titled "Historical Influence" is expected to show what later works were influenced by this particular one, not what earlier works influenced it. As stated by the tag, an article whose topic does not meet the minimum notability requirements is likely to be deleted.
 * The tag about "primary sources" has quite simply not been addressed. The sources used have to be, for the most part, works over which the authors of Auricula Meretricula have zero editorial control (such as book reviews, etc.). As a matter of fact, these two issues are one and the same. There are currently no outside sources asserting the notability of this book. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean by the primary sources issue. However, the first cited item is from the introduction to the play, in which the authors specifically state that the play was written for first semester students. Wouldn't this be an exception? I mean, its not like the authors are stating that the play is the greatest work of modern literature; they are just giving their motive.Nercromancy? (talk) 01:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this wouldn't be an exception. If first-year Latin students are actually using this play, one would think that would be reflected in the kind of third-party sources I talked about, thereby making your argument moot. There's a difference between a text written with some goal in mind and a text actually achieving that goal. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism of my user page - the first one i've ever had! I probably wouldn't have noticed it for ages, so have a cookie :-).



Performers College
Ok, so you've stuck a load of tags on my article about Performers College, but perhaps you could add a note on the discussion page saying why and what bits you are referring to. First of all, an administrator has already refused speedy deletion of the article, because as an accredited, validated college it passes as notable, even though nobody there was resposible for the develpment of the atom bomb. However, you've stuck a tag on questioning notability??? Also you have tagged it as needing reliable 3rd part references, which I have alrready added. If you could state specifically which bits you're not happy with, then I would be happy to copy the same reference tags to other sentences in the article, as those few references that I have provided back up more or less everything in the article and all are 3rd party. And yes, you could well now say that using words like 'leading school' etc makes it sound like an advert, but it's not the case, all I have done in the article is state facts, the use of phrases like 'leading performing arts school' is not intended as peacock terms or a promotional tone, but are included to highlight what makes this college notable from all the other multitudes of dance schools and courses in the UK. The validity of those kinds of statements is backed up by the reference tag directing you to the website for Trinity College. Can't think of anything else, so maybe you might like to get back to meCrazy-dancing (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Make Compatible
Why is Make Compatible going to be deleted probably? --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

School Redirect
I am currently fixing up the page for the school so I'll add more as I find it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When you look at other elementary school articles in the state, they are really unnotable. I'm getting to fix that part but I have to first research it, which should take awhile. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Geek Mafia
Hi, I dont understand how the title of my page was vandalism, seeing how its what I made, and its all from a book. Please inform me on why you deleted 3 and a half hours of work too, if your not too busy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by G33k.-.m4f14.-.h4x0r (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

A7 / Alan Scott (blacksmith)
Hi Blanchardb

I see I'm not the first to suggest you might be a little unnecessarily trigger-happy with your shiny tools. Alan Scott (blacksmith) received a full-length obituary in The New York Times (pretty much the epitome of significant coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject), an obituary that was fully cited in the stub you nominated for speedy deletion. While you might not think that the text of that article indicates the subject's importance, the reference is sufficient. You will not find a single administrator that disagrees.

I personally support high notability hurdles for inclusion of subjects in Wikipedia, but throwing around speedys gives weight to the arguments of irrational inclusionists.

Regards Bongo matic  04:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Make Compatible
Make Compatible is notable. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 02:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Samahang Nazareno A Passion Play in Cainta
I left some comments about Samahang Nazareno A Passion Play in Cainta at Pages needing translation into English, and a machine translation on the article's talk page. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Make Compatible
Make Compatible is now notable. Please remove the prod template. Thank you. --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Malaka Dewapriya
Could you please give your contribution to this article Malaka Dewapriya Best (Jets (talk) 18:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Suggested page for deletion
you requested a page on Bunbury United Soccer Club to be deleted. if it was poor maybe edit it and improve it rather than just ask for it to be deleted. poor form, poor form! Owneroperator (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted on the grounds that there is no indication that its subject meets our notability requirements. On such grounds, all the cleanup in the world will do nothing to prevent the deletion of the article. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * so your saying the article is irelevant to the comunity. it is about a football club. please delete all football club articles then. i can not see the difference. i thought through your "christian values" you would be accepting of every and any ones interests.Owneroperator (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

ay
sorry but I don't know how else im suppose to talk to you. is there a msg feature or something? -reggaloza —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggaloza (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you've been adding information that is patently false (there is no such thing as a province in Germany). Also, please do not sign your own comments with other people's signatures. Thank you. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

actually yes there are provinces in germany. and i dont know how to sign  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggaloza (talk • contribs) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no provinces. Only Länder. And Nachtsheim ain't no Land. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:00, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I heard them say that it was a province on the news and I saw it on here so I changed it. Oh well. And the Rogers and Woodbridge stuff was valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reggaloza (talk • contribs) 03:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Blake Elementary School
I added some pages to this AfD. I'm sorry it was late, but I figured I'd let you know if you wanted to endorse or change your !vote. Thanks,  Grsz 11  05:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

reply
Greetings,

I didn't notice the replies to my questions, until after the afd closed. You wrote: "The nominator can only do so much." Of course. But, in my experience, many nominators nominate articles for deletion, based on concerns about the current state of the article -- not based on whether the topic merits coverage.

Some of these nominators assert articles are on non-notable topics, without appearing to have conducted any search on the topic themselves. I have found other nominators have conducted a search, have found some sources, but chosen not to be candid about the existence of references, for reasons of their own.

When a nominator has chosen not to conduct a search for references for an article, prior to nominating it for deletion, because they think those kinds of searches are a waste of their time, aren't they very selfishly putting a much higher value on their own time than the value they put on the good faith effort of those who participate in the discussion they initiated? When they claim a topic is "not-notable", without having conducted a search for references, and that topic actually has sources, they have wasted the time of everyone who weighs in on the discussion.

Of course the person who started the article has a greater responsibility than the nominator in researching the article. You and I agree they have the main responsibility. They should make a greater time commitment, because they have to write up those references.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree that what you are talking about is indeed a problem, when I said that the nominator can only do so much, the fact is that many times a nominator will come across an article with a weakly asserted notability and no third-party references. That person will google the title of the article and come up emptyhanded, sometimes not knowing that he has done his search for sources under a misspelled title. In such cases, the nominator had no way of knowing the actual spelling that would have given the right sources. Or another example, the nominator didn't know where to look. And as a result, the article ends up being nominated for deletion, the creator, or someone else familiar with the topic, comes up with sources, and the article survives either as keep or as no consensus.


 * I'll tell you my own view on this matter, having often changed my votes in AfD's after sources came up: Every person who votes in an AfD has a responsibility to do a summary research (and there are ways in Google to eliminate some false positives) and to take into account the previous comments, not just the article itself. For cases where one sees no reason to even bother with a Google search, there is speedy deletion. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We agree that each participant in the discussion should do summary research. I confess I am not always influenced by the previous participants disucssions -- because there are discussions where I disagree with all the other participants.  Cheers!  Geo Swan (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

re: 100 runs ODI cricket partnerships by Sri Lanka
Just following the guidelines! "If the article has been translated, but needs attention from someone approaching dual fluency in both languages: 1. Use the notice cleanup-translation... 2. Add a mention to the translation cleanup section on this page." The first paragraph is gibberish. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, it seems there never was a foreign-language version from which a cleanup can be done. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your point. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment
I have put a notice on the hinduism notice board so that hopefully we can get some references. -- Q Chris (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for catching the vandalism on my userpage! -FaerieInGrey (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment
I'm assuming that revert of my changes to the Miller v Texas section was merely collateral damage in your edit war with 141.154.110.173. (I had let my login expire before I saved the changes, so my changes came in as 67.174.251.157) If you have any concerns regarding my changes, please let me know on the Second Amendment talk page, or my own. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase reduces to "The issue...was whether...X...should be dismissed." Neither opinion nor prophesy, just expressing the issue before the court. If that turn of phrase bothers you, feel free to replace it, but the overall change is moving toward a neutral tone, please don't revert it back toward POV. Celestra (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * you're in violation of 3RR in your edit war with 141.154.110.173. please refrain from violating 3RR. Anastrophe (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

EFCC
I appreciate your last note. I believe I am understanding the encyclopedic definition. While I was aware that this was not a web style or promotional venue, I can also appreciate the issues over subjective and promotional content in my last attempt at contributions, although that was not my intent. I will as time allows make another stab at providing further information which I believe is appropriate to such a listing. While my attempt may have been flawed I was seeking to build the content as it appears to have been in some other related listing, such as Christian and Missionary Alliance. Your advice is appreciated although the extraction of the entire contribution seems arbitrary. Your Hitler metaphor was probably not the best choice but I got the point. Here is my concern. If someone like me who knows the history and detail up close and personal feels that more data should be supplied and if my relationship calls such contribution into question in some editors minds, then, and I am being sincere in this, would it be more acceptable and wiser for me to provide a contribution to someone like yourself with the understanding that you will remove what does not qualify and you will edit the data so that it is in fact helpful within the wikipedia listing? ronu (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Ron Unruh


 * What Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest states is not that you are completely forbidden from writing about something you know about, just that you need to be careful about what what you are writing. Believe me, I do not want the article on the EFCC to go through another deletion discussion, and that's why I removed your latest additions wholesale. Please keep in mind that I kept your earlier contributions in. Please keep in mind, also, that anything you write can be later modified by virtually anyone, and that anything written that one might possibly have grounds to disagree with (statements of opinion come to mind, see WP:NPOV) can be challenged at any moment.


 * The point is, to avoid challenges, you should make sure that what you write can be backed up by third-party sources, that is, sources not affiliated with the subject. This is not really important when stating trivial information such as the exact number of congregations, but when saying how the stated goals have been achieved this is essential. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

correct me if I am wrong...
Correct me if I am wrong... I should interpret this edit as a sign that you lost interest in discussing this article? Geo Swan (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed you are wrong. If the point you brought up in the discussion is valid, then you should have no reservations about doing as I suggested. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? I am glad I checked.  Geo Swan (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey Blanchardb
Are you even affiliated with SAU? Do you know how much of a hellhole it is here? I admit, the peyote thing was farfetched, but my section about oppressive regulations is actually true.
 * It is a statement of opinion, so it does not belong in Wikipedia. See WP:LIBEL. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm offering the a commonly held point of view. I would welcome an opposing side as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.229.236.151 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then state it as "it is a commonly held point of view that..." And for a statement of that kind, the presence of a reliable source is non-negociable. If you have no sources, the topic is not discussed, period. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:PNT
Thanks for telling me, I switched tabs when I clicked 'submit' so I didn't see the issue. &mdash; neuro  (talk)  01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your request for cleanup
Can you be more specific in your comments?Prh203 (talk) 04:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Joshua Feldman's page
You said in response to my comment on his talk page that he was not listed as a featured dancer, but rather "dancer" or "Dancer #6". My questions is why is that different from Corey Gorewicz and Hayley Podschun, both of whom appeared in Hairspray as dancers, and who have existing pages with roles similar to Joshua's? I did add external links to make the information more verifiable. Suprheath1 (talk) 04:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for bringing those pages to my attention. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

PMI schduling...
good job restoring that AfD!Troyster87 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Amber Rose Kelly deletion
Hello ... saw your reasons for deletion and you may want to reconsider if that was your reasoning ... please take into consideration that those "uncredited" roles you mention on her imdb, were in the early 90's, when she was 2, 3 and 4 years old, and non union. She was not Taft Hartleyed into SAG until aged 3.5 and she was nominated for an award that year, along with Leonardo DiCaprio, The Olson Twins, etc ...

http://www.youngartistawards.org/pastnoms13.htm The Olson Twins won in her catagory, and Leo lost to Brian Austin Green. I attended the awards myself. She stopped acting at 5 to just be a kid, and then at 11 started writing music and taught herself guitar at 12, and performing on the Sunset strip at 16, had a 1 woman photography show at 16, and has shown at least 6-7 other times, in Los Angeles Galleries. She also did a national commercial that ran for nearly 2 years, and another that ran in japan as well as local theatre. Amber Rose's music has been listed on the web since 2002 when she had her first music page on the shortlived Tonos, created by Baby Face Edmonds, Carole bayer sager and Robert Foster.

Please GOOGLE "amber rose kelly", or see and hear her music pages on myspace, and credits, live performance videos on YouTube etc ... as she is also a very talented singer and songwriter who doesn't deserve to be deleted. Please check your other points of reference available to you on this vast web. We appreciate your future due diligence. Also we're wondering how she came to your attention?

Write311 (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The result of the discussion was delete. If you disagree, please open a case at deletion review. But given the arguments you gave me (that I should see by myself how talented she is), such a review has little chance of success. The main criterion for inclusion is notability shown through reliable sources, which MySpace and YouTube do not help establish. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
Hey! Just a quick question. On Tricycle (spy) did you not review the page for past vandalism because I found that about the last 10 edits were all just more vandalism. I wanted to just remind you to check if the page you restored has gotten rid of all vandalism. Happy Editing! Sahilm (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed. But Huggle is a bit unwieldy for making that kind of revision when you just opened it up. That's why I had added the page to my watchlist so I could do the revision later. Thanks for saving me some work.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Putney ?
I notice you have stated that the revision for adding the leaders of a worldwide religious community of 160 million people, who had/has resided in Putney for nearly 20 years is not constructive? I am a little confused when looking at others you have included, such X factor winners etc.

Please clarify how mentioning these two individuals is not constructive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.17.62 (talk) 01:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is no article on these two people (yet) they cannot be included in a list of notable residents. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If they are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, you may want to create an account and start articles on them. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Seth Hilton
Hi, I just noticed that you dealt with sock puppets relating to this person recently. Over at Warped Tour 2008 there was some vandalism adding mention of a Seth Hilton. I followed the user name and noticed that there are SEVERAL current active users related to this person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:I_Want_To_See_You http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DrVince/Seth_Hilton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wisher_Tour

and it just goes on and on. Basically each user page is some fictional article relating to something with this fake person. I'm not really sure what this person is up to but it seems very odd to say the least. Since you were the editor who brought it to Wikipedia's attention in the first place, I figured I'd let you know since you would know exactly how to deal with this. DX927 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For the time being, nothing can be done about it: except for the one edit you reverted, all edits from all of these accounts are in userspace. There is not enough evidence to launch another sockpuppet investigation yet, but this user is worth keeping an eye on, as is anyone who edits User:DrVince/Seth_Hilton. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On second thought, this looks like policy evasion... --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 05:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

KJAS
Fair call on the prod, but just a heads-up that I've removed the tag. Even though licensed radio stations are held to be notable and the articles will eventually get created, I've linked the cities of licence in the interim (which I should have done when creating the page). I've added a couple more entries as well, including one with an existing article. Mlaffs (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI
is a sockpuppet of someone I've seen earlier today; the article that the other user created had similar content. This other user was blocked, but I can't remember the name. Probably should be blocked.... you're an admin, right? -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, someone else got it. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew that. Hence the 4im warning, since I'm not an admin. The idea was to store him on my contributions list so that I can build an accurate sockpuppet report later on. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Cleo Carter(Tutenstein)
Hi In what way did you think Cleo Carter(Tutenstein) lacked "sufficient context to identify the subject of the article"? The title alone is enough to identify the topic, and the article even had a wikilink to the character's voice actor. It also wasn't not "very short", as required by WP:CSD. Cheers, Amalthea  01:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.
His was just one of the socks/meatpuppets. I can go back through my contribs and find the first one I blocked, but I don't know if that was the very first or not. At least it'll be a start. Thanks for the tip and for all you do. You're one of the good ones. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Total Access Statistics
New Message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Total_Access_Statistics DataAnalyzer (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!
Hey Jerry teps. Thanks for cleaning up the recent vandalism on my user page. Happy editing to you and your kin.  Flying  Toaster  02:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Choice Records / List of Your Choice Records bands
Hi and thank you for offering your kind help. I am not used to deal with all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia. It seems to be very complex. But you seem to be very much up to date with it all, so you might be able to help me out here. Your Choice Records is an independent record label that has managed to create a fairly astonishing catalog of live European and American punk bands in an important period of time. It is very notable as it has documented and released moments of musical history that, even if it happened all independent and without major promotion and big money involved, had a huge impact to the development on music itself. I don´t think we need to argue about "punk" and question it´s existence here. But the musicians mentioned on the "List of Your Choice Records bands" really had strong believe in what they did and they made great changes possible, made people think and react. I think all this is very notable and not minor. This extra page seems reasonable to feature the artists by their names. It is a relevant information and Wikipedia is the right place to provide this information, so please help me out here to SAVE the info, not to delete! Thank you! Party diktator (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What we mean by notability is that people have noticed this record company already. That should be reflected through the insertion of third-party reliable sources in the article, preferably as inline citations. The article, as it stands now, only gives primary sources, that is, sources over which the record company retains at least some editorial input.


 * As for the advert tag, you may not have meant to write an ad, but the tone of the article certainly is promotional: a sentence that reads "The label is most notable for having maintained a strict do-it-yourself ethic..." gives no real information and should be omitted altogether. Things like that should be shown, not said.


 * As for the list of bands, I will wait for the outcome of the deletion discussion before commenting. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made some changes. Do you like it better now? Feel free to help me out. Thank you! Party diktator (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed the advert tag. The article still needs third-party sources, or else someone might initiate a deletion discussion on it. But I promise that won't be me. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for everything! Party diktator (talk) 04:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey! Check out the discussion site on "List of Your Choice Records bands". Some good response! I am happy! Could you please remove the consideration for deletion? Thank you and all best Party diktator (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI, I just warned Party diktator for blanking Articles for deletion/List of Your Choice Records bands. I've also reverted the blanking. —C.Fred (talk) 05:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi: Regarding the list of bands: Germany already agreed with the German version of the site. See: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Choice_Records_-_Diskografie Could you please remove the consideration for deletion again. It feels so degrading... If it is still not possible: Is there anything I could do to help out? I thought the internal links to the pages of the various bands already fix the problem with the missing sources you mentioned!?!? Besides, there is a possibility to check the official site of the label and various sites on Wikipedia that feature releases of the label, done by various people... Anything else you need or can we leave it like that? Party diktator (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To state such facts, my talk page is not the right place: the deletion discussion page is. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 18:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, tryed to fix the page with some more and better info. Did it just for you as nobody else seems to worry about it. Now the page should be worth to stay like that, don´t you agree? Please be so kind and remove the consideration for deletion. I also wrote to C.Fred and asked him to take away his tag. I am sure there is bigger evils to fight, so please leave me in peace. I only tryed to create something beautiful, informational, educational for Wiki and I am quite happy with the result. I am sure we have a different taste, but this is not mainly about taste, right? It is a list of artists by a record label. On out of 83 on Wiki.en ... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_artists_by_record_label) So thanks you for everything! I have learnd quite a lot through this session. All the very best, Party diktator (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton for the help!


TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for help removing the vandalism on my user page. The vandal (User:Y32) has been identified as a sock puppet and has been indefinitely blocked. I really appreciate it and if I can do anything for you just ask.TomCat4680 (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Google the term
Nearly a million hits and all have them concern the Japanese economic crisis. It's a widely used term that's why Obama picked up on it. The page just hasn't developed yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shiplevelone (talk • contribs) 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Your Proposed deletion of articles started by me
Hi. Greetings from Chicago I have improved the article 1997 Sangrampora massacre and placed my comments and arguments why these articles belong to wikipedia on the talk page of each article. Ditto for the article on 1994 kidnappings of Western tourists in India. these articles are about events which played an important role in the deterrioration of India Pakistan relationship which almost led to a nuclear war at kargil in 1999. Have a great day. --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, before you wrote this, I did notice that you have deprodded these articles. When you stated why, I did give you some insight on their long-term survival. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for your comments on 1997 Sangrampora massacre, regarding the other article I was not really planning to expand it myself as most necessary info is in there with a good list of references. But I am new on wikipedia and any suggestions are welcome--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Hortatory proposed deletion
A Hortatory is an essential part of language and speech - ANY language and speech. If you delete the Hortatory, why not delete "verb" and "noun" as equally useless. Deleting this would be like deleting Greek from the Bible because people don't understand it or use it very often. It is still essential! ....Themoodyblue (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoodyblue (talk • contribs)
 * There was already an adequate article on the concept you are trying to convey, so I converted your article to a redirect. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 20:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK brother, I can live with that. It is just important that it be there for a reference. In Biblical Greek and Latin for instance, the hortatory is much more common than it is in English and the Romance languages. That is a fair compromise. (PS - What church do you belong to?) Themoodyblue (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, I am a United Methodist pastor near Austin, Texas. Themoodyblue (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Speedy Deletion of FlowMingle Article
I am relatively new to Wikipedia and this is the first article I have started. I am also the President of FlowMingle, which may prove to you further that this is spam. However, I would like to argue my case for the inclusion, or non-deletion, of the FlowMingle article. After reading through the references you cited, I suppose that you consider this to be an example of 'Advertisements Masquerading as Articles'. The article contains factual, verifiable, referenced information. If it is the tone of the article that you contest, then I would be happy to try rewriting it to be more neutral. "FlowMingle" appears on Wikipedia twice. Once in the "List of online dating sites". It clearly qualifies for inclusion in this list. Second, in the FlowMingle article. So, people either come to the FlowMingle page through the 'List of online dating sites' or by searching for it directly. Over a thousand people have come to FlowMingle.com from Wikipedia, and hundreds have signed-up. Why is that relevant? Because clearly people value the FlowMingle article as a reference and use the information that it provides. People are using Wikipedia to learn about "online dating" and to educate themselves about the choices they have if they want to pursue online dating. The 'list of online dating sites' contains sites that are all notable in some way. Some of the sites are very large, some of them are unique. FlowMIngle is unique. It is a significant departure from both 'database dating' sites like Math.com, Yahoo! Personals, etc. and from "test based" sites like True.com and eHarmony. The FlowMingle article tries to highlight these differences and outline what FlowMingle offers. Is that informational or promotional? If you examine the other articles that are referenced in the 'list of online dating sites' I think you will find them to be very similar to the FlowMingle article.

But, as I said, I would much rather revise the article than to have it deleted.

B h bryant (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There has also been an additional discussion regarding this issue opened here: User_talk:Stifle

P Sauerbeck —Preceding undated comment added 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC).

Green Line
thanks for the fix, I was trying and edit conflicted with you. Not sure WTF twinkle did there. Thanks again! StarM 01:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) ✅ here. StarM 02:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What Is the Problem?
Why do you have a problem with relevant trivia about this item? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellorelio (talk • contribs) 12:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bart Simpson is allergic to butterscotch and imitation butterscotch. I included a link to a wiki about the episode in which it was mentioned. It is relevant and of interest to the item of butterscotch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellorelio (talk • contribs) 12:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Metamatic Records redirect
Was their a reason for the redirection of the Metamatic Records article redirection. I didn't see any discussion about the article. The record label is mostly for John Foxx releases, but has links from other artists working with John Foxx (such as Louis Gordon). The links from their pages to Metamtic Records now lead to the John Foxx article, which makes no sense when browsing.--Electronic Music (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

CNEP vs polymer failure
Hello, I just realise that my contribution (CNEP vs polymer failure) will be deleted tomorrow (assay!) but I do not understand why and how to improve the text (if possible). I saw that you are from Quebec, "peut être parlez-vous français?". Pouvez-vous m'aider? A bientôt j'espère--Urcize (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, "essay" means that the text reflects a personal opinion, or that of a group, and is therefore unacceptable in an encyclopedia. The fact is that, since there is an article called "CNEP vs polymer failure" and no article called "CNEP" that is about that same research center, there is something wrong. When I read the very first sentence of the article, I see no mention of CNEP, and that is something to be fixed.


 * In an encyclopedia article, a reader must be able to identify the subject by reading only the first sentence. The rest is just elaboration. The title is "CNEP vs polymer failure". So the first sentence should state what is CNEP, what is polymer failure, and, since the term "vs" is present, what is the arena in which the match between the two will take place (if that last comment does not apply, then the term "vs" should not be used). --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 08:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this clarification, I leave the article be cancelled tomorrow and I plan to submit a new version (with new title). I should be happy if you could read this second version first, before edition. --82.127.52.85 (talk) 15:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I have performed a page move to National Centre for the Evaluation of Photoprotection. I will also remove the deletion tag, as I am convinced now that you're on to something. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's Just a Plant
Hey, just wanted to let you know that It's Just a Plant, an article you prodded a while ago, made the front page in WP:DYK :]. Show's what a little bit of expansion and references can do, eh? Regards, FingersOn  Roids♫  01:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. Mind you, I didn't contest the deprodding. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the headup
You've reminded me of the fact the histories are lost. Also now I realize that the source page might be protected. So I must pursue some other way - probably admin assistance possibly with the more immediate and/or formally expressed consensus on the talk page. All the best, Biblbroks 's talk 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Woah
Sorry, accidentally marked your article as patrolled. Sorry about that.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 01:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that was the whole idea :-) --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That it would be marked as patrolled or that it wouldn't be?  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 01:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That it would be. The problem is that an article was on the patrol backlog as a month-old unpatrolled article, but that article was nonexistent. I had to recreate it just so that I could mark it as patrolled and remove it from the backlog. But when time came for me to mark it as patrolled, you beat me to the punch. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Great Job!
Today, for the first time, I started reverting vandalism using Recent Changes and I noticed that almost always either you or ClueBot had already reverted it between the time I clicked on the link and when I pressed undo! I would like to congratulate you and ask if you have any tips on how to spot vandalism and revert it so quickly. Great Job! -- Micromaster  (talk)   (contributions)  02:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Spurious entry in NewPages report
We have another one - see this log report. (If it does not show Tony Issac, the problem has been fixed.) I have reported it at Bugzilla. Please leave it untouched: a) so that the Bugzilla people can look at it and b) to confirm that, along with all other new pages, it will disappear after 30 days - if so it is not worth fussing about. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The only other log regarding that page is that it has been moved to userspace with redirect suppressed. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As suggested by the people at Bugzilla, I have just filed a separate bug report on this matter. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Single Use Foodservice Packaging Article
I really hope this is how I reply to you. If not, please forgive me (and please let me know what I should do to contact you). I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning.

I recently wrote an article on Single use foodservice packaging (March 23). It is slated to be deleted and editors are discussing it currently. Using the editor's comments as a guide, I've been working on the article, removing some sections, adding others and doing general tweaking to make it more acceptable. This morning I added sections on its history and materials used in the industry.

Is there anyway to tell if I am on the right track or will my changes be considered? Will my changes help save the article? I hate to put a lot of more effort into an article that's just going to be deleted. I have other subjects I am more interested in writing about.

Thank you for your time. I hope you don't mind me writing to you like this, but you posted to my "talk" section that I could contact you with questions and you were the first editor to recommend deletion (so I figured that made you a good place to start looking for ways to improve things). Hrundle (talk) 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

nevada
do you know 1 interseting place in nevada besides lake mead, and the atomic testing museum? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.127.134.204 (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to try the reference desk instead of asking one person at random. Chances are, someone knowledgeable will come up. :-) --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 23:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

75.174.50.49
Thanks for your diligent reverts at Porch monkey, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 01:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the deletion of Engine001's Wikipedia page
Hi :)

The Engine 001 Wikipedia page was deleted for two reasons: "User admitted that it was a copyvio" and "author blanking"

Sorry to be a pain, but i am not sure what 'author blanking' means. Also, if i made another Wikipedia page for the software titled "001 action / rpg maker"; Its offical name, would that be ok? I strongly believe this software deserves its own page, and i am prepared to gather a large amount of information and team of contributors before i start the entry this time. I will also ensure there is no bias.

If you feel there should not be a page for the software at this present time, ill take your word for it.

Thanks for your time. Evergreen481 (talk) 08:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you got the information that the article was deleted on the grounds you listed, but it is still in place (though perhaps not for long). For your information, "Author blanking" means that the author of the only substantial content in an article has blanked the page, which is interpreted as a desire to have it deleted. Such requests are honored when no one else made any substantial contribution to the article.


 * Here at Wikipedia, we do not give articles about software on the grounds that "they deserve it," or that people should know about it. The only thing we look at is whether enough people already know about it, and whether it has already verifiably caught the attention of a reliable source. (Blogs, forums, and wikis (even Wikipedia itself) do not count as reliable sources.) By that criterion, a piece of software can be total junk yet have an article about it, while another one could be the epitomy of perfection yet have its Wikipedia article deleted on the grounds that it has no notoriety. A Wikipedia article should reflect an already established notoriety for its subject, not establish it itself. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears that as soon as i logged in the page undeleted. When i last searched for it it came up with what i previously described. Thanks for your help. Evergreen481 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Emmanuel Venturina Acuna Jr.
Huh? Would you mind please explaining the creation of this article with a db- tag?  AK Radecki Speaketh  23:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because of a bug in Special:NewPages, any page that gets moved by an administrator without a redirect remains listed as unpatrolled even though it is, technically, nonexistent. The bug report is linked to in the template I used (template which I also created), and the only way around the bug, currently, is to recreate the page just long enough to mark it as patrolled. Quite useful when doing backlog patrolling, which I've been doing quite a lot lately, as it removes useless stuff from the list.
 * When I created the template db-unpatrolled, I made it quite clear that the template itself should be deleted as soon as the bug gets fixed. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I expect you won't be the only one asking me this, could you suggest a place where I could write the above explanation quite prominently for anyone else who will be asking? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Great explanation, thanks! I'd suggest maybe a bolded item in the db template? Maybe "If you want more information on why this has been done, please read...." and link to a subpage somewhere? Just a thought. Many thanks for taking the time to answer the question, though!  AK Radecki Speaketh  02:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop Drop'n Skank
You deleted my article on the acclaimed Toronto band Stop Drop'n Skank. You said this was because they did not have any achievement that would allow the band to have a wikipedia article when i clearly stated that it had a good reviewed album on iTunes. I even edited my article to say that Stop Drop'n Skank was most successful for there album on iTunes, and i also put under the article's discussion page exactly why it should not be deleted yet you still deleted it. I am suspecting that you only deleted the article because yo had not heard of the band and you disproved of the name. This would make sense seeing that you are strongly Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunMan3344 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the actual deletion, nor did the name of the band affect my decision to tag your article. As a matter of fact, I never thought the name was even a problem before you brought it up here. The fact of the matter is, since the band released its album only on iTunes (and not at HMV, for example), it is not likely to be known widely enough. Please be aware that a band's talent is no guarantee of a Wikipedia article: such talent has to be verifiably noticed by a reliable source first. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The person who did the actual deletion was . --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of bands on wikipedia that are not sold in HMV non internet buying of cds is going out of buisness —Preceding unsigned comment added by FunMan3344 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know. There are a lot of bands on the Internet. That's why we must sort them out to weed out the ones that barely got noticed at all, and set a minimum standard for notability. See WP:MUSIC for the guidelines. Be aware that if an article gives no indication that a band does meet those guidelines, the article may be deleted without a discussion. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for revert
Hullo Blanchardb, just dropping by to say thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage, also great work in the recent changes altogether, all the best SpitfireTally-ho! 20:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your message
Wrong postbox! (see vs)  Cheers,  Ka renjc 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yves Carbonne
Hi,

Re. Yves Carbonne, I see there's been a bit of edit-warring going on :-)

Remembering that there is no deadline, please could you cooperate in two ways;

1. Please don't edit the article further, while we resolve this

2. Please, instead, *suggest* your edits and discuss them in the article talk page.

I will add a section to the talk page right now, Talk:Yves_Carbonne

Thanks for your cooperation :-)

 Chzz  ►  21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Cheers for that! I'm still engaged in, err, 'discussions' with the user in IRC. Hopefully they'll get the hang of things and discuss. We can but hope. Thanks!  Chzz  ►  23:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * User has now placed an unblock request User talk:TLCbass. Chzz : Chat  01:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Why inapproptiate?
Can you please elaborate on what grounds you deem the videos I posted to "Central Asia" and "Empire" as inappropriate? They are lecture videos presented by respected scholars from around the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.174.52.203 (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Answered on your talk page. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You against the viewpoint of the whole mainstream media
I've replied at my talkpage. DawnisuponUS (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Thanks a lot for your improvement of my article CNEP. I added a short sentence at the beginning of introduction (according your advice) and also a new category relative to polymer failures, I also remove your introrewrite message.--Urcize (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Surjeet Singh (Sarangi)
You've been involved in the article, please leave a comment at Articles for deletion/Surjeet Singh (Sarangi). Thank you. Hekerui (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Norbert Basil MacLean III article
Could you assist in putting a semi-protect lock due to vandalism of the Norbert Basil MacLean III article. It has been vandalised repeatedly since January 2009. The vadalism appears to be occuring during times any actions are taken on the federal legislation Maclean recommended. It's been hit three times today. (Mattwashdc (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC))


 * First, my talk page isn't the place to make such requests: WP:RPP would probably get you a faster response. Looking at the article's edit history, I don't see that it requires a lock. The amount of vandalism isn't higher than any other page for a prominent politician. Additionally, though the page has been vandalized three times yesterday, all three acts were done by the same person, meaning that warning said person is the best way to go (and if the warnings are not heeded, then blocking him from editing any Wikipedia page will be the preferred response). --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
More info - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 23:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Govind Swarup
Turns out he's just as important as the article says he is. I added a ref to start with, as you could have too if you had thought to check Google. DGG (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeremiah gyang
I declined your request for Speedy Deletion on Jeremiah gyang. The article makes a dubious claim to fame referencing a song call Na Ba Ka... but it does look as if that song might in fact be a real claim to fame in Nigeria! I did, however prod the article and if the prod is removed, it should probably be sent to AFD.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I've put the article on my watchlist (as I do with every article I prod), so if the article is deprodded, I'll know what to do. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 00:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good... I did so as well. Like I said, there is enough of a claim to significance to avoid CSD, but as is, it wouldn't survive an AFD.  But that's why we have PROD/AFD, to give these types of articles a chance.  Who knows, the author might actually be able to make something of this article.  The first article I worked on was nominated for CSD and I took it to FA.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In the end, the deprodder was someone I generally consider reliable. I did some digging, and the article can be referenced, so I took it off my watchlist. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lee Withers
How is this irrelevant!, who are you to decide, this has a very valid point to it, I can't back this up quick enough if wikipedia don't give me enough time to make the page!! Lee Withers is a nephew of Bill Withers, that relevant enough for you?? Or you only like talking about famous people in general!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Attwood72" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Attwood72 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Unified ECM Deletion
Hello. You have proposed Unified ECM for deletion because it is not notable software. This software is not only used by major film financing and production companies in Los Angeles but is also used free of charge by dozens of churches in Southern California. It was actually in the process of being under construction, but the writer had to take a break and saved without displaying that. My question is, where is the definition for Notable software in Wikipedia, or is it your personal choice? As far as the citations and other things that would validate Unified, the writer was in the process of that. Thanks. Buckeye31177 (talk) 22:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That the clients using the software are notable is not an indication of the software's own notability. That it is available for free has nothing to do with notability either. The real question is, are there sources that are about the software, and over which Unified ECM Inc. has no editorial control? (And I'm not talking about blogs and forums here) That's the kind of reliable sources upon which the article should be built, not the company's own website. The non-existence of such sources is a strong indicator of lack of notability. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Blanchard. I can respect that, although the writer didn't have a chance to use sources because they weren't finished yet. I really don't care at this point, one way or another, because if this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_DeArmond) is what Wikipedia considers "Notable" and worthy of an "Encyclopedia", I'd rather not have Unified affiliated with this glorified "big blog" in any way. It's too bad because your information about Astronomy and businesses is great, it's just too bad it has to be associated with such "noteworthy" smut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckeye31177 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out, the existence of independent reliable sources is what makes all the difference. The article on Dana DeArmond is kept because there are independent reliable references about her. Please note that this does not constitute endorsement of her work, or even the industry she works for, otherwise we'd have to delete the article on Adolf Hitler as well. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry Plater-Zyberk
I think that your placement of tags on Henry Plater-Zyberk less than a minute after its creation, which one can clearly see is under development at this very moment, is pushing it a little bit. He is a much-cited scholar and an expert in his field. How about revisiting the article in a couple of days, and then judge it. --Russavia Dialogue 10:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Those were not deletion tags. Feel free to remove them when the concerns are addressed. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 10:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, I know they were not deletion tags, but the editor in question is building the article at the moment. We'll see how it progresses. Cheers --Russavia Dialogue 11:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

your mistake,
I signal that I dont accept attacks either, learn before (respectiously) talking, look who begins conflicts, he treat me as banned user Ecuadorian Stalker (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Then treat him the way I treated you. That's what the templates at WP:WARN are for. Being the victim of a crime is NO EXCUSE for committing one of your own, especially not as revenge. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

SO GO PLACE ONE ON HIS TALK PAGE RIGHT NOW ! Ecuadorian Stalker (talk) 12:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, let's settle the sockpuppetry case first. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 13:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Posting Music Reviews
Hi there,

I attempted to create a page for a website (sunonthesand.net) I contribute to last month and was informed that it did not meet the notability requirement. This is fair according to your stipulations given that we are not that prominent as it stands but I do have one question regarding another matter. A few of our staff members have posted links to our reviews on album pages and they are constantly removed. One of us was even told by wikipedia personnel that we could do so yet our work is removed nonetheless. Why is this so? If I put a few up tomorrow, will they be taken off again? I would understand if we posted needlessly negative writing and it was subsequently removed by an overzealous fan but the reviews we have tried to post were usually in the 4 star range. Any insight on this would be appreciated. Iamnotacamera (talk) 06:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. Although links to reviews are welcome, they are only helpful if they come from sites with which the reader is already familiar. This goes with our policy of having material supported by reliable sources. In the case of a link to a review from a site whose notability is questionable, that would be akin to posting a link to a review made on someone's personal blog, which is inherently a violation of our policy on neutrality. Remember that your primary goal should be to post helpful material about the songs being reviewed, not to advertize the reviewer, as you seem to be doing. Actually, I would daresay that for posting reviews from a particular reviewer on the article on a song being reviewed, the notability standards for that reviewer are much higher than the notability standards for having an article on that particular reviewer.


 * If we allowed every non-notable and barely notable reviewer to post links to reviews from their sites, it would serve no other purpose than to overwhelm the articles with a list of external links, all of which would be saying pretty much the same thing, if you think about it. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, while I believe that our reviews do present their own spin on albums and are helpful to music enthusiasts, I can understand the thought process here. As for flooding a page with external links, I would frankly find that incredibly convenient as a wikipedia user. Then again, that may just be me. Regardless, thank you for the reply. Iamnotacamera (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Coming Soon (2008 film)
How did you come to the conclusion it was an Armenian film? - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It was the characters in the original language, which looked Armenian to me. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 11:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Mark Parchezzi III
What d you mean only by browsing the refs how many albino clones are there if that dose not give you a clue that he is fictonial I don't know what will.--AKM73 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article, as it stands now, gives the impression that you are saying these do exist in real life. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

R n km.t
Dear Blanchardb. You have tagged the r n km.t article with a tag containing this quote:

This page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion as a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and is not in another language. See CSD R3.

You are wrong. r n km.t is the Egyptian name for the Egyptian language. You might want to refer to the Egyptian language article before tagging r n km.t for deletion.

kotak kasut 02:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You'll be pleased to know I have untagged the redirect even before I got your message. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow. That was fast. I must be having too much instant coffee or something. kotak kasut 02:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Coming Soon (2008 film)
The article for Coming Soon (2008 film) has now been much improved.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 09:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the opportunity to improve an article, and thank you further for the withdrawal of the deletion nomination. It is amost appreciated. Best regards,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Pages Needing Translation / Mushabbab asiri
I noted your comment that I check this bio with the "professor test," but now your comment is gone, and the page history does not show who deleted it. What is going on? Did you delete the comment yourself? Why? --Cbdorsett (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It is still there, and the revision that was current when you posted this comment (that is, this revision) shows it. My guess is that you have a cache problem or something like that. Did you look at that page using the same computer you usually work on? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Either that, or you were simply looking under the wrong header: it was under احمدرضا زینالی that I posted something about the professor test. Although that would still apply to the other article as well. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My Talk page.
Hello,

Thanks for reverting my talk page! Happy editing.--gordonrox24 (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

not sure how to get ahold of you...
I'm pretty new to Wikipedia, so i may not be up to par on protocol, but, honestly, what was the bias introduced by my edit? it reflected the fact that the Iroquois had been impeaching leaders since before the British arrived. i added a few links into the discussion page, since i dont know how to properly cite sources, but they're right there, man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.166.50 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The bias comes from the fact you introduced a notion that goes against intuition, so you have to back it up solidly. For the technical aspects of citing sources, you can take a look at WP:CITE, with a few useful templates at WP:CITET. Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

db-band
Hi. What template do you use to notify the creator of an article, that said article is being considered for deletion? Not done enough work really (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The very template suggested on the db-band template. Just copy and paste the text at the bottom of the template.
 * For a list of speedy deletion templates, go to WP:CSD. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! Not done enough work really (talk) 22:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You reverted me
I'm not going to edit war you for it, but I think that Result, which is almost entirely not about cricket, should get its own talk page and not have to share with Result (cricket).69.221.151.26 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello I need help to resolve a matter and I am aware that I may not be following all the proper protocols.


 * While I agree that your intentions are legitimate, blanking pages is always suspicious, hence the reversion. However, I did perform what you intended to do, exactly as outlined above. Sorry for the inconvenience. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Dispute re MacLochlainn
But I have edited a page about Gerry MacLochlainn and O Fenian keeps removing my edits. He is doing so on the basis that he does not accept the Western Mail as a paper of record. Well I do not know how else to say this but IT IS A PAPER OF RECORD. How do I get this dispute resolved.
 * Try the article's talk page. This is always a better place to settle disputes than expressing them within the article itself. I am ready to withdraw the AIV report that my software auto-generated against you, but you must go through the proper avenuse of dispute resolution, which means that if a source's reliability is in dispute, you should seek consensus to include. From what I've seen, both of you have violated the three-revert rule. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrong, if you had checked the edits there have been multiple uses of poor sources, or no sources at all. My edits are fully compliant with biographies of living people, the disputed information stays out until there is consensus for inclusion. Do not template my talk page again. O Fenian (talk) 21:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it seems you are wrong and have been warned. Is it reasonable that someone who is actually wrong in his description of the Western Mail can act as if it is only his opinion that counts?--86.131.127.183 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you - I have attempted to do this but O Fenian just ignores my comments regarding the Western Mail and cuts my edits. He is breaking the three revert rule as much as I am (just seen that you have said that - sorry) and quite honestly I find it bizarre. It seems he has a personal reason for censoring material on MacLochlainn. The western Mail is a paper of record in fact it is the paper of record in Wales and that will be confirmed by anyone from Wales.

Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.127.183 (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologise to everyone for not getting this signing thing right. I think I have this right now. --86.131.127.183 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)