User talk:Caknuck/Archive 3

My Subpage
That was put there on purpose, but I'm going to modify it so it won't appear as the image. The purpose of that subpage was just to have everything I might need tool wise. Thanks for noticing. Lordevilvenom 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Texas Rangers articles
Go ahead edit anything you want.Tulsaschoolboard 18:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC) Just started the '04 gamelogTulsaschoolboard 15:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

PSCA article
Hello Caknuck, How Are you, I have seen somebuddy have edited my article i.e Punjab State Carrom Association. & there he throw a tag of clarification before some names and places. What i have to do to remove those. please help me. user:hpt_lucky 11:48, 8 July 2007 (GMT)

Deletion review query
I'm looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Psycho: Music from the Controversial Motion Picture, closed as keep.

I can see why you closed it as a keep; it obtained 4 views, comprising 1 keep, 2 keeps that would accept a merge, and one merge, plus the delete view of myself as nominator.

However I have concerns. The nomination grounds are policy based; the keep votes were:
 * "Should be notable, wouldn't mind a merge". No evidence of notability assertion provided, personal opinion and even that is just "should be" not "is".
 * "Seems fine to me, could be merged" a variation on WP:ILIKEIT. No evidence provided.
 * "The film is notable [irrelevant as this is an article specifically on the soundtrack, not the film], soundtrack is notable 'because of its association with an incident'." No evidence provided, personal opinion.

I just don't see any policy based reason, with evidence, to dismiss the nomination concern, and without those the issue isn't how many votes, it's what policy based points were made and evidenced.

Can you reconsider this one, or failing which, may we ask for the issue to be reviewed? It looks like the classic case where theres a strong keep vote, but apparently little or no substance to it. Thanks! FT2 (Talk 02:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on FT2's talk page.) Caknuck 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just read the article so far. Does a simple and rather undramatic usage permission dispute as its sole claim to fame make this a notable track in the "create an article for it" sense? Isn't this a legal/dispute issue over the film soundtrack that fits into 4 lines, and apart from which nothing much relates to the soundtrack that wouldn't still be better handled within the main article of the film and soundtrack combined? I'm still unconvinced by reasoning, that it doesn't both fit, and fit better, in the American Psycho (film) article. "There was a minor dispute and a few web pages briefly noted it" isn't really a notability claim in and of itself, usually that's fair game for the main article if so. I don't see evidence the track is notable, even given there was a dispute, unless the dispute itself was notable too, in which case retitle it to Huey Lewis and American Psycho soundtrack dispute. Thoughts? FT2 (Talk 05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply. You emphasize that you are not involved in the matter, but have just closed the AFD on it. I emphasize in turn that this was understood, and my inquiry is more in the nature of checking on a matter I know little about, from someone who seems to know more, how my perceptions stand and what else I might not be aware of. I don't think the comments make it notable, but there's no rush, I take your point about a merge though. Thanks immensely for the explanation and "filling the missing gaps" for me. I'll let you know if I do ask for review (I probably will, but want to think about it some more). Once again, thanks :) FT2 (Talk 07:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

AFC reminder
Hi Caknuck. Just a friendly reminder -- when you encounter a copyright violation at AfC, don't forget to delete the copyrighted text from the submission. Thanks! Powers T 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Theophanous
Please explain the reversion you just did on Andrew Theophanous. I find it hard to believe you actually have read the article and compared the two versions. 59.167.158.178 08:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on anon user's talk page.) Caknuck 08:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How are the changes made, some of which improve the faulty English in the article, in anyway represent vandalism. Please read the article, please read the references from undisputed and quality sources I've added and then make an assessment. 59.167.158.178 08:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on anon user's talk page.) Caknuck 08:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't responded at all. You have reinstated poor grammar and poor style evident in version one of the article which itself is almost a comic whitewash of the subject. I'm not saying I have a monopoly of wisdom or information, am happy to discuss changes, form a consensus with you but you have not participated in any such discussion, nor has anyone else. Please see the Talk page for proof. 59.167.158.178 08:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted to have that discussion. None has ever been responded to, just unilateral changes making the article even more laughable. Happy to discuss the material with you now if want. For example, why have you deleted the material on Theophanous' conduct from the relatively highly regarded Sunday programme ? 59.167.158.178 08:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By what process will the unsubstantiated material in the article be removed? You seem to know your way around here so I hope you can assist. 59.167.158.178 08:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on anon user's talk page.) Caknuck 08:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not an editor on wikipedia, my work precludes me doing that so I just dabble from time to time. As you are much more involved, I would welcome it if you could return to the article in a few days and see that I will have had no response - or no serious one - to the issues raised. The article version 1 has been written either by the man himself or more likely his wife. I have no issue with them wanting a fair article but what they've come with is a mockery. The man is a convicted criminal, one of few Australian politicians in that category. A Google search on him might not be the final word, but certainly reveals an abundance of sources supporting the description of him in version 2. I would be delighted to discuss the content in the Talk page but I don't believe we will get very far with the subject of the article or his wife (understandably). So I'd welcome someone who can evaluate the issues from a distance and with a strong knowledge of how Wikipedia works. I hope you can do that otherwise you will have an article that reflects very poorly on Wikipedia. 59.167.158.178 08:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on anon user's talk page.) Caknuck 08:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll roll as Visasforsale for future communication. Visasforsale 09:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I could change it, to be honest I thought it best to disclose my bias, I think he acted disgracefully. That doesn't mean everything he's ever done should be ignored or forgotten or that there should be an unbalanced article. Because of work, it is not possible for me to edit Wikipedia articles very often but I thought one user account would solve the problem and that I might as well make it clear that I did have a view. Unlike the other author, I am willing to open about it. Visasforsale 09:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have added tags to the Andrew Theophanous article. Are they the right ones now? Visasforsale 11:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the autobiography one as it's very clear the subject is involved (to me). Of course I can't prove that but it's the content that demonstrates the point, I believe.

Also, I have proposed a course of action in the article Talk page which I'd like to implement, depending on the response from "Socrates". If there's no response from him/her after a few says, I'll move forward with the changes I proposed initially while removing anything that can't be substantiated with references. Is that a proper way to proceed? Is it the right time-frame? What do I do if "Socrates" ignores the consensus building attempt and just continues to revert the article to their whitewash version? Sorry for all the questions but wanting to do this properly. Thanks. Politicocrimina 12:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since writing the above, I've noticed Socrates has come in and merely added some sources, mostly left them and failed to respond generally in the Talk page about the tone and overall content of the article. Could you please encourage them to participate in consensus building. Politicocrimina 12:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In relation to your deletion of the changes put up in the 14th August version - I take your point about explaining each change. Have just edited second paragraph only which was a bit confused about order of events and which court was involved, also was not up to date with latest developments. Have referenced all material and explained changes. Hope this is OK.Socrates7500

Vandalizing like a drone
stop vandalizing legitimate changes like a drone. content should be prioritized, this is not a power game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.185.223 (talk)
 * You're a sock of a indefinitely blocked user. I'll keep reverting, thank you. Caknuck 07:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was blocked unfairly because they fear my corrections of their lies. You are behaving like a drone and compromising content. Do the world a favor and read content before you revert, or talkpages. The changes you keep reverting are sourced and only raise the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.185.223 (talk)
 * If you want to edit the encyclopedia, you have to follow the rules. Subverting them only brands you as a vandal and ensures that nobody will listen to you. So now, your "corrections" will be immediately reverted. Caknuck 07:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I did at first but I was blocked unfairly by POV gangs and corrupt admins. Unsurprisingly, you're behaving like a fascist drone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.185.223 (talk)
 * If you violate the rules, which you did by POV-pushing, expect to get blocked. Your behavior has ensured that your contributions have no place here. Deal with it. Caknuck 07:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles for creation/Today
I have no problem with you turning down the "Colin Nell - Football Freestyler" but I just wanted to let you know what happened. The IP posted copyright material from here and put it into the middle of the hidden section. I have removed the copyright material. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Sorry for the delay, but thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. Tiggerjay 04:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! Caknuck 04:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Andrew Theophanous
Significant changes have been made to the Andrew Theophanous article. Despite our best efforts, Socrates7500 didn't want to participate in building a consensus on the article. I fear s/he will return and make unilateral changes and material deletions without discussing them first, let alone establishing the consensus you suggested. Could you please counsel her/him not to do that and to do what you instructed me to do which was to work through changes in the Talk page. If the behaviour persists, I would ask that you protect the page and prevent them from acting against Wikipedia policies. Also, could you please review the article and its references, I would welcome your opinion as an editor. I think the article is much improved but I suppose the person writing it would think that! Johnreginaldsmith 21:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Johnreginaldsmith's talk page.) Caknuck 22:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor review/Caknuck
I reviewed you. Shalom Hello 20:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RFA upcoming
I have nominated you for adminship, here: Requests for adminship/Caknuck. The rest is up to you. You should answer the questions. (You can copy 2 and 3 verbatim from the editor review; nobody cares.) Then you should transclude the RFA onto the main page (see Requests for adminship/Nominate for instructions.  Good luck! Shalom Hello 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Rick Tumlinson
I jumped the gun on the Rick Tumlinson/Texas Rangers rv edit. Sorry about that.  Barkeep   Chat 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Barkeep's talk page.) Caknuck 18:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA was successful
Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! You may wish to add yourself to WP:LA. Good luck. --Deskana (banana) 23:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

RfA thank yous
In lieu of spamming 40+ talk pages, I'll say this here... I wanted to thank all of those who participated in my successful RfA bid this past week. Your words of support are certainly appreciated. Caknuck 23:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats on becoming a admin! Politics rule 23:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats man! Jmlk  1  7  07:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

CoH
I don't think we were given adequate time to make changes to the "Church of Humanity" article. It was thrown into deletion debate and decided on lickity-split. I can't help but feel like it was targeted for some reason by Wikipedia members who may not agree with our existence on a personal level. Our church is very surprised at you for the fact that you are not being fair. it's astounding. If you are an encylopedia, you should catalogue everything. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but that was way too fast. I worked very hard on that article, and all for nothing. Tell me, is there any way I can revive that text? Jiminezwaldorf 17:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Jiminezwaldorf's talk page.) Caknuck 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, Caknuk. We've assembled some third party souces now. I don't know if they're good enough, though. I'm having trouble finding the right place (on the deletion review page, or whatever) to address this. Little help?
 * Caknuk?? Are you there?? Jiminezwaldorf 17:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Caknuk. I'm not sure what you're doing, but I need to resolve this issue with you. I'd like you to restore the Church of Humanity article because we'Ve gotten some solid third party references recently. I've made repeated attempts at contacting you here on your talk page, but to no avail. This is not something we can simply bide our time and wait around for. Deletion review said that I should kindly ask you (the admin who deleted the article) to undelete it. That is what I am doing now. The information contained in the original article is not something I can remember enough to simply recreate so if you could get in contact with me on my talk page regarding this issue that'd be great. Jiminezwaldorf 00:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Jiminezwaldorf's talk page.) Caknuck 02:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Soulja Boy
Thanks! I'm just glad that the first people to discuss that deletion had good reasons; it would have been a shame if the "ILIKEIT" comments were the only ones. Nyttend 02:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thats for the copyedit of the Bob Meusel article, I'm going to finish that article tomorrow I hope, now that I have access to old New York Times papers. I'm also trying to get Ken Hubbs to featured status at the same time. Can you copyedit that as well. And also congrats on your RFA. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 22:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Jaranda's talk page.) Caknuck 22:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I
left hya note there about your AN/I thread. hope you don't mind. ThuranX 01:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know
Thanks for correcting me about the vandalism noticeboard. I'll be sure to put those warnings up if it ever happens again. I don't know why that IP keeps removing the templates, but whatever. Thanks again! --PAK Man Talk 06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Banderstiz
I must say that I have to agree with Jonny2x4 regarding Banderstiz's contributions. Surely you've noticed that none of his articles have any outside sources whatsoever? On top of that, they all seem to link to each other, none of them ever really going anywhere. The mangas in the articles he creates are drawn by the people in the articles he creates. I'm definitely inclined to think this is an elaborate hoax. GlassCobra 18:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentone and Loving County, Texas
Ecjmartin 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Dear Cacknuck,

Thanks so much for fixing my edits on Mentone and Loving County, Texas! I'm still pretty new at all this, and still learning, so I appreciate all the help I can get! Best wishes: Ecjmartin 15:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Ecjmartin's talk page.) Caknuck 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on 100 AfD reviews
Congratulations on being the 10th reviewer to cross the 100-submissions-reviewed mark. Some people got their awards early, I think now they are waiting until the end of the drive to hand them out. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you mean AfC, but thanks anyway! Caknuck 23:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, yeah. I'll blame it on too much time in front of the computer frying the brain :).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

AFC News
 WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News! We are nine days away from the end of the drive, and it's been fantastic! Many, many, many days of backlog have been tackled, and over 1500 articles reviewed!

To start off, a HUGE THANKS to everyone who helped out with the coordination of the drive, and actually fighting the backlog in the drive itself. Everyone's done a great job helping out, no matter how many articles you've reviewed/

Remember to update your running total, on the drive page. This is the ONLY way that I will be able to give out awards appropriately.

Lastly, I will be giving out awards on August 16th. Anyone who could help me, that would be fantastic. Contact me on my talk page if you'd like to volunteer.

Great job, everyone! This Drive has been fantastic, and I'm sure that some members of the Project have definitely made friends by collaborating on the talk pages. Thanks,

GrooveDog.

THATs what was wrong!
Sorry about the AFC thing. I was putting the top but not the bottom and it kept screwing up the page so I stopped that, thanks for explaining that! Cheers,  Je tL ov e r (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Barry Bonds home run watch. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris Young
Thanks for the help. Are you leaning toward supporting the article. If so, I could certainly use such a statement on the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on TonyTheTiger's talk page.) Caknuck 19:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All FA athlete bios have chronological career summaries. Because Young is early in his career season by season is the logical sectioning method.  Later, it might be Rangers, Padres, and other teams or early career, all-star years, later years.  If you have been following the discussion you may agree that due to the early stage of his career his article may have more detail than other bios.  However, later some of this will be removed.  The question is whether the 56 KB is encyclopedic as it is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in WP:WIAFA that requires an article to be written at the WP:SS level 2 reader level of detail. There are surely good articles written at the level 3 reader level of detail.  I think this is one of the better level 3 articles out there.  I think this level of detail could stand two or three more seasons written with the same level of detail without being too long.  Thus, we need a crystal ball to tell us what he will be doing in 2010 to determine whether the editorial difficulties will ever arise.  There is no reason not to evaluate whether this is a quality article written at level 3 detail.  If you where interested in Young's college career is there a lot of superfluous detaiil.  What about if you were interested in the significance of his rookie season?  I don't think there is much fluff when considered from the level 3 perspective.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I find it hard to believe that Young's article is any less stable than Barack Obama's.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

FRC 1719 Deletion
Sure, I can do that. I'm going on vacation for a week and a half starting tomorrow, though, so I may not get to do it until I get home. -- Tckma 12:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to let you know, but I speedied (by user request) the version of the article at my user page space because a more detailed version already existed on FIRSTWiki. --Tckma 21:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AFC Drive - Last Day!
As I write this message, we officially have 2 hours left before the end of the drive. Prizes will be awarded tomorrow, so don't worry, I haven't forgotten. It's been a great drive, with tons of work accomplished. Thanks, everyone. GrooveDog GrooveBot 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Automaticlly delivered by GrooveBot at 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Theophanous
The article says he was "in office" when he was convicted. As the article also says, he lost his seat at the 2001 election, and was convicted in 2002. 2002 comes after 2001. Therefore he was not in office when he was convicted. This is an elementary proposition in logic which does not require a source. Intelligent Mr Toad 10:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Intelligent Mr Toad's talk page.) Caknuck 13:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
I think that given the advertising tone of the article, and the lack of objections to its deletion, this relisting was really not necessary. Yours,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I relisted it because
 * Establishing a clear consensus at AfD generally heads off further resurrection of the article.
 * Considering that only one person !voted, I wanted to make sure that enough people saw it to give it a legitimate chance at being fixed. While the claims to notability were spurious at best, it never hurts to have an extra set of eyes look at it. Caknuck 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It was on AFD for a week, therefore enough people saw it to give it a legitimate chance. The reason I'm pointing this out is because the Foundation Lawyer told us, earlier this year, to be extra critical on people or companies utilizing Wikipedia for advertising. By relisting such articles you are inadvertently helping those advertisers.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. By relisting the AfD, we establish a consensus decision to delete, which leaves no question about the fact that the article doesn't belong in the encyclopedia. This also gives us a better basis to salt the article if the user persists in reposting the article. I felt it was important to attempt to meet the "rough consensus" guideline of WP:DGFA. And as far as the advertising perspective goes, IMHO it's tough to consider an article with a huge AfD template at its top as an effective advertising tool. Caknuck 17:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three words: SEO.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I see where you're coming from. I think we both agree that the article needed to go, but we opted for different means to the end. Either way, it's gone now. Thanks for your perspective on this. Caknuck 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

PROD section on Deletion sorting/Baseball
Thank you for your customization of this section. The associated boilerplate regarding what to do is nicely put and I might template it for use elsewhere. See User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals for the scope of the activity I'm currently engaged in which led to addition of the PROD section; this is an experimental/pilot activity right now, aimed more at information gathering than anything else. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 03:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made some revisions to the boilerplate that you initiated. See User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals for the revised text and WikiProject Deletion sorting/New Zealand for an example of use. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Little Robe Creek
Hello. I appreciated your help with my new article and your pointing out areas I needed to reword, or eliminate, in order to avoid POV issues. I have taken each point you raised, and changed the wording, eliminated weasal words, et al. If you feel that it is ready for removal of the NPOV tag, I would be grateful. If you feel it needs more work, just let me know. Again, the assistance is appreciated. John1951 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Neutrality Tag on Little Robe Creek
You will see that since you tagged the article it has been completely rewritten, all weasal words removed, and teh specific concerns you raised, all addressed. I am removing the tag if you don't feel there is anything else which needs addressing - I really do feel you will find the article 150% improved, very NPOV, and your help in raising these issues was greatly appreciated. If you see anything else which needs addressing, let me know, and it will be taken care of at once. THANKS AGAIN. John1951 03:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Danielthesaint
The line between a content dispute and vandalism is when the user breaks 20RR against nine people. Will (talk) 18:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the line is pretty clear. Please check out Vandalism (specifically "Stubbornness") for an explanation on the matter. As a procedural note, 3RR (or 20RR violations, for that matter) should be referred to WP:AN3. I have blocked the user in question for a period of 48 hours for violating 3RR and for making uncivil comments to TheIslander. Caknuck 19:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Convulsus Fides
I am curious why you blocked him for but a mere three days. All he did was use his account only for vandalism and replace sections of a film with "this movie sucks!". He did this several times, I think he should be indef. blocked. Cheers, Je t  Lover   01:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think we should indef. block Haeden myers6. Cheers, Je  t  Lover   01:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also I think we should indef. block Yodelmaster. Cheers, Je  t  Lover   01:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know many other admins may view this differently, but I'm against handing out immediate indef blocks for the first instance of vandalism when it's relatively harmless, juvenile vandalism (as opposed to some of the racist/personal attack garbage we sometimes see here). I've also softblocked the IP, so this should give the user a bit of time to mull things over. If they return, then by all means have they earned an indef. Again, this is my own personal philosophy on the matter (and by no means is this carved in stone, so I reserve the right to change my mind if I get burned by this). Thanks, Caknuck 01:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the case of Haeden, it seemed to me that this is a relatively young user (between 12-14 years old, maybe younger). Especially in cases like theirs, I'm in favor of a softer approach. With a bit of maturity, some of these vandals may develop into productive editors. Caknuck 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What about this guy? whom said he "hates niggas" and called another person a "nigga." That's racist, and it was on a userpage. And I don't think vandalism is harmless unless it was a small change, these guys were replacing whole sections with nonsense. Cheers, Je  t  Lover   01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right on this one... I'll fix it immed. Caknuck 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Cheers, Je  t  Lover   01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Gay Male Porn Stars
I in no way mean to be confrontational on this issue, however, does it not bother you as an admin that there are articles of this nature on wikipedia that are blatant advertisements and spam? I have had articles deleted that were very notable and no matter how hard I and other editors faught for them we were still told they did not add up to the wikipedia standards of notabilty. Do you not think that we should be doing something to change these rules for WP:PORNBIO so that editors have more control over editing and raising the standards? The article of Nate Christianson is being edited by Nate himself. So, if you touch it, within a few minutes he has reversed anything an editor has done. I am finding out that most of these subjects are the actual editors and are stalking their own pages. Now, as an admin what do you suggest we as editors do to clean this crap up? I have no problem with the "gay porn" but I think it needs to be notable and no advertising! If it shows signs of that, then it needs to go! Junebug52 14:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and one more point. Do you not think that it is strange that all of the individuals doing the fighting for these articles are doing so under IP addresses instead of creating legit accounts to edit under? Junebug52 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Junebug52's talk page.) Caknuck 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As in all things, we can agree to disagree on this subject. I and other editors feel the same way. These articles are nothing more than mere advertisements and spam. The sources used do not take you anywhere but to their own personal pages where people are asked to sign on and download pornography. How is that not spam and advertisment? This is ridiculous! Junebug52 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Undo deletion of page
Hi Caknuck. You seem to have removed the page leading to Wincent Persson due to WP:CSD. This person was a significant member of the band Violent Work Of Art, from who's page he's frequently referenced. Hence the page makes quiet a lot of sence, doesn't it? Just as with the other members in the band such as eg Tobias Eng & Viktor Eng. Can you undo the deletion?. 14:19, 2 Sept 2007 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.233.197.86 (talk)
 * When I deleted the article, it was an uncited, four-sentence stub about a former member of a band (which I am not convinced is notable in its own right). Also, the article was written by User:Wincent Persson, so it was a violation of WP:AUTO. Just because Persson was in a band that has an article on Wikipedia, it does not automatically qualify him for his own article. You're more than welcome to try to recreate the article, but unless you have information that asserts Persson's notability outside of Violent Work of Art, it's unlikely the article will last long. Sorry. Caknuck 01:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I have images of historic places...
Hi Caknuck,

I have taken pictures of some historic places and I found this page:

List_of_registered_historic_places_in_Pennsylvania

So I created a page for one of them (James Parreco House) which contained only an image and a caption. You deleted it per WP:CSD. So what can I do to keep pages like this from being deleted? Or would it be better to link the images directly from the list of historic places?

Thanks in advance,

JoshuaTree 19:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on JoshuaTree's talk page.) Caknuck 05:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Ragealbum.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ragealbum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 02:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Deborah Lurie ?
I am an instructor at Wikiversity where, in one lesson, film students study some the music of Deborah Lurie. I was about to create a reference to w:Deborah Lurie when I notice you deleted the page on August 7, 2007. I do not remember if I had seen the page about Deborah Lurie so I do not know why you deleted it. Should I add it back? Robert Elliott 20:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Robert Elliott's talk page.) Caknuck 05:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I had not read the original article so I was not aware that it was not neutral.  I am reasonably neutral and there are a lot of industry news articles about Deborah Lurie so I will attempt to create the article as it should have been written.  When finished in a few weeks(?), I will let you know.  Robert Elliott 14:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Eleventyseven
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eleventyseven. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chubbles 04:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why Matlan Marjan speedily deleted?
The reason quoted is lack of notice of importance, but I mentioned there that he is probably the greatest football player in Malaysia for having scored 2 goals against England. Isn't that good enough? No Asian player have managed to score that many against an England's team. I don't want to claim that he is the best Asian player because I'm not so sure.

I had put the {hangon} tag while trying to figure out how to respond to the speedily deletion and trying to search the logs for the reasons.

I can only find out after it is deleted. Too late, isn't it?

Matlan Marjan is quoted many times in Wikipedia. If you search google, you'll find his names widely quoted in many websites. You just can't miss his name.

I tried to recreate and add more info but it was again speedily deleted by someone else because it was earlier deleted by you.

football is soccer in USA, and Malaysia is an unknown footballing nation, very low in ranking. Matlan Marjan does not need Wikipedia to be famous with such a reputation. I just want to complete the many references to Matlan Marjan in Wikipedia with a short notice of his achievement. His name is in the list of famous Malaysians but little detail. You should check his background first before you delete this entry speedily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Othmanskn (talk • contribs) 13:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Undeleting Matlan Marjan
I need to add a few more details to make it clear that he is a professional football player playing for Sabah. It is all implied from the Statement that He scored 2 goals against England. England is an international team, and since Matlan is a Malaysian, he can only play for a Malaysian national team.

I need access to the article in order for me to give minimum details so that it cannot be deleted. I hope more enthusiasts will edit it for me but it may take months.

I'm new in wikipedia. I thought I managed to delay the speedy deletion by putting hangon while giving me time to add more details. Now it appears what is need is to make it fool-proof from US sportsmen who don't seem to know World International Teams like England, Malaysia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Othmanskn (talk • contribs) 04:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Othmanskn's talk page.) Caknuck 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I checked google, couldn't find anything that isn't trivial mentions, I redeleted it. Jaranda wat's sup Sports! 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Clovis West High School
Do you think that it's appropriate to put the phone number to this school in the article? --Amaraiel 05:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I took it out once and he reverted it. Oh well. I'm not going to test 3RR on this one so yeah. Thanks! --Amaraiel 05:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Amaraiel's talk page.) Caknuck 05:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

why
why would you delete Anthony girardo he was up for the special olympics, who are you to say hes not notable, prick. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete8182004 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use disputed for Image:Radiodaze.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Radiodaze.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Question
Perhaps you can help, I am having a bit of a problem with the spam protection blacklist. Radio Station WBIG-FM's website is idigbig.com....problem is, the spam protection blacklist won't allow me to add that. Is there anyway that you can go in and change that as it is not a spam site but an actual radio station website? I would appericate it. Take Care and Have a Good Day... NeutralHomer T:C 15:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks!
Thanks for your participation for my RFA bid and for your support.--JForget 23:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

BMC03
Caknuck,

I just got a message from you saying you deleted my page, presumably because there was no content. As it happens, you deleted it while I was editing. Can you bring it back? That took me quite a while.

Thanks, Daspuii —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daspuii (talk • contribs) 21:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Daspuii's talk page.) Caknuck 23:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Caknuck,


 * I was going to create BMC01, BMC02, ..., BMC30. These are study guide questions for a med school biochemistry class.  Some background on our issue: our professor gave us 30 questions as a study guide for the exam but we are having trouble organizing 160 people to do them.  I suggested using Wikipedia because the answers would represent the consensus of our class.


 * I understand that this a new use for Wikipedia. Still, it does not violate any policies and it fits the purpose of Wikipedia in that it furthers knowledge available to everyone.


 * Please consider allowing us to continue.
 * Ben —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daspuii (talk • contribs) 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Daspuii's talk page.) Caknuck 01:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Fabrictramp RFA
Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 50 supports, 1 neutral, and 1 oppose. My goal is to keep earning your trust every time I grab the "mop". (And I'm always open to constructive criticism and advice!) Again, thanks. (And a special big thanks for your excellent work on baseball articles!) --Fabrictramp 16:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note
You created this page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jiminezwaldorf/CoH. I believe that this is not allowed. ScienceApologist 18:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User:65.31.111.78
This is an IP that you blocked for 24 hours. Please have a look at his talk page for a comment I left at the bottom. Thanks. -- Elaich   talk 01:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

User:81.76.65.77
Hi, you've warned this user at User talk:81.76.65.77 that you would block him or her if the inappropriate language in edit summaries continued. Today, they've left a few comments on an article that I've been working on, so I was wondering if you could take a look at it (Special:Contributions/81.76.65.77). Thanks. GaryColemanFan 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Edit summaries such as "Sorry, cocked up the layout removing lies, fixed now" are not acceptable here. Caknuck 18:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

198.70.82.222
I think you removed my entry by mistake. . . I did give him a final warning. - Warthog Demon  03:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the first warning you left, and the final warning had yet to show up on the page due to database lag. Generally, it's a good idea to leave a blank line between warnings, so it's easy to discern between them. However, at the point when I checked the editor's history, they had only made three edits, and it was unclear if they had vandalized after your warning. Either way, they've stopped, and it's certain that the final warning's been given now. If they start up again, immediately report it to WP:AIV and we'll get it taken care of. Thanks, Caknuck 06:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

New Guy Question
Hello Caknuck - New here, had a question for ya. Was in the middle of adding the Seiden Wayne page but you deleted it before I could really get any type of history section up or anything along those lines and I noticed the reason cited for the deletion was:

"Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."

So I get the part that any article needs to be encyclopedic but my confusion comes from the following sentence:

"Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion."

...because although it didn't have any historical aspects added yet, it arguably wasn't written as an advertising page either. So my question is, what causes a company page to be deleted vs. acceptable? Definitely want to be clear on that distinction in the future.

Thanks,

Burning Sands Burning Sands 04:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Burning Sands's talk page.) Caknuck 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Seiden Wayne

The key thing for writing articles about people or companies is to be able to assert notability through the use of reliable sources. While there are no codified rules for determining the notability of law firms, generally the firms has to have been the recipient of at least two instances of non-trivial coverage from reliable, independent sources and have a specific claim to notability, such as arguing a precedent-setting case in the SCOTUS, defending a client in a landmark criminal trial, winning important awards, etc...

Also, before submitting the article for inclusion in the encyclopedia, make sure it is as complete as possible. If you can't finish it all at once, then you may wish to work on a draft article outside what is termed here as the "mainspace". This is most commonly achieved by drafting it in your userspace, such as at User:Burning Sands/Seiden Wayne. When the article is complete, you can use the "move" feature (see the above tabs) to move it to Seiden Wayne.

THANK YOU for your response. I will definitely follow those instructions in the future when making other pages.

I do have another related problem however. I helped to create another law firm page at Heller Ehrman that followed exactly what you outlined here: notability, reliable sources, (as the page noted quite a few of the Supreme Court's landmark rulings) and moreover had a it was written in an objective tone, was encyclopedic and was in-line with the style/type/tone used by the other 160 pages dedicated to law firms listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Law_firms_of_the_United_States  Until this morning, the page was a part of this category and a few different users had contributed to it in some form or fasion.

Moreover, the page contained a considerably informative history of the firm which chronicled its relation to the other institutions that were intergral to California's history from the time of the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906 until present day. This took quite a few days and a lot of effort to compile and after having reviewed the list of what wikipedia is and what it is not, I believe the page was deleted in error.

Is it within your ability as an admin to restore pages that have been recently deleted? If not, may I and others recreate the page for your/other admin review?

Burning Sands 17:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Law firm articles
Hi, got your message. Let me set the stage first. Please take a look at the editor's other article at Day Pitney. Pure copyvio and promotional. When I see these, it's usually because we're being astroturfed. I think the fact that we have three articles with promotional overtones about completely separate law firms from this editor and no other unrelated edits speaks for itself. WP:DUCK and all that.

As for the copyvios in the article you asked about, many of the items in the section "Notable Cases & Transactions" are taken from http://www.hellerehrman.com/en/about/history.html, with a couple of words changed here and there. The paragraph beginning with "Specialization" was taken verbatim from http://www.answers.com/topic/heller-ehrman-white-mcauliffe?cat=biz-fin, as was part of the next paragraph. There are other sections that were more or less paraphrased from these and other sources but remain copyvios, IMHO.

Curious to know what you think of all this. -- But | seriously | folks   18:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Missorting, date formats
Please don't mess with correct sort keys, as when you changed the DEFAULTSORT at Carlos Gómez. Also go read up on the rules for dates at WP:DATE. In particular, don't add "th" to the days. Note also that adding "Year in baseball" links and the like to full dates such as May 13, 2007 also messes up the working of date preferences formatting (with regard to presence or absense of a comma, for example for May 13, 2007 I get "13 May, 2007" with an extraneous comma), so use such links sparingly. Consider whether they are actually important enough to baseball as a whole to warrant that link, and if so try to link to a year standing alone without day and month if possible. Gene Nygaard 22:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the sort key. I apologize in part, because I was looking at my reversion when I though you had changed "September 7, 2007" to "September 7th 2007".


 * But your "by" template isn't any different from manually adding that "year in baseball" link, is it? Furthermore, you have removed the link from the May 13 in adding that "by" template, making it even worse as far as preferences go, even though it was already redundant because you had already added that template to the year standing alone above that.  So I think there are still problems to be ironed out here.  Gene Nygaard 22:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, the sort keys used to be covered in WP:CG and are still covered in Categorization of people, even though some misguided editors seem to have moved rules which apply equally to any other category as well. Gene Nygaard 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Note also that the major purpose of "Year in xxx" links, especially when used as they are in this article, is to go in the opposite direction, from the Year in xxxx article through what links here to find relevant articles. If it isn't pointed out in the visible text that the link is going to take you to a "year in xxxx" article, then it is just an Easter egg (media) event if somebody happens to click on that link and ends up at the article.  They generally aren't going to know before they click on it that where they will end up is somewhere other than the general article about that year.  Gene Nygaard 22:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Streisandwetalbum.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Streisandwetalbum.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Article
My Jack Akin article was deleted less than 24 hours after it was posted. I requested information on the discussion/talk section of this article on how to avoid this, but my request was not acknowledged before deletion occurred. Can you advise me on how to keep the article up when it is reposted and why a radio persona and podcaster with numerous podcasts on a particular subject (which he was categorized under) is not acceptable under the code that you supplied as a reason for deletion?

Thank you. RiverBissonnette 21:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on RiverBissonnette's talk page.) Caknuck 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on the baseball All-time roster standardization
Since you commented on the AfD debate for the Chicago Cubs All-time Roster, I thought you might have an interest in participating in a discussion on standardizing the baseball all-time roster articles. If you'd like to join in, the discussion is here. If not, please ignore this message. Thanks! --Fabrictramp 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I followed your advice to no avail
I followed your advice and BigGabrial reverted the talk page. and other advice. please... thanks. UnclePaco 22:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

fair use
Hi, with all respect, you shouldn't be admin. RTFM. Kind regards, --NoCultureIcons 00:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on NoCultureIcons's talk page.) Caknuck 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Collinson Grant
Hi. You deleted the above article after closing Articles for deletion/Collinson Grant. Would you mind if I took it to deletion review? I missed the debate but I'm a bit concerned about the low number of people involved and also the opinions expressed. One user states that the article needed secondary sourcing, even though one was provided, and that it read like a brochure, even though I am obviously not attached to the company in any way, and the other stated it failed WP:CORP, again something I'm not sure stands up given the numerous press mentions the company has garnered, I count 1140 in this google archive search,. I can see how you closed it as delete, but I think there are wider issues here that perhaps need a larger pool of debaters. Steve block Talk 08:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Steve block's talk page.) Caknuck 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

T-Rock®
Please read the talk page before you delete. Sources were being added.  T Rex  | talk  01:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The talk page made no mention of pending sources and the tag wasn't placed on the article. Besides, process states that if an article is deleted via AfD, address it at WP:DRV if you wish to have it overturned. If you have additional sources, open a DRV case & show them there. Let me know whn you do so. Thanks,  Caknuck 01:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of T-Rock®. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.  T Rex  | talk  01:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have provided sources that verify his claims to notability. See the discussion for more info.  T Rex  | talk  00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

hello
when i try to create my user page it says it has been deleted allready by you. can i ask why? thank you in advance. sign Gentleness 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (Responded on Gentleness's talk page.) Caknuck 00:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

69.125.250.52
Thanks for your help fighting off the spammer. He kept reverting my undo and seemed to have good time doing it. Your intervention definitely made difference ;) MarkMarek 04:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. In the future, make sure warn the spammer using the templates at WP:WARN. If they ignore the warning, then report them at WP:AIV. Cheers, & welcome to Wikipedia! Caknuck 04:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question
Are you able to delete a User page as Nonsense (CSD-G1)? Tiptoety 06:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (Responded on Tiptoety's talk page.) Caknuck 06:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay! Great, thank you for your help! No, just there was a comment made on WP:ANI that a User page was deleted for nonsense, and i personally have never heard of a User page being deleted for that before, so i thought i would ask, thanks for you speedy response! Tiptoety 06:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

So would User:Abraby constitute as nonsense and be deletable? Because when i put it up for deletion i was told that users can do as they wish with their user page(s).Tiptoety 03:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok! thank you very much for you in depth response! Tiptoety 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

T-Rock
Hey, I was wondering if you could provide me with the text of this deleted article. I was asked by the creator to find some sources, and I think I've found a few that would work, but I'd like to have something to start with. Thanks! GlassCobra 22:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like this was handled by W.marsh. Let me know if you need anything else. Caknuck 00:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Did you know that, according to this IP, you just blocked half of the nation of [[Qatar?]] Er, and they're requesting an unblock. I noticed on sensitive IP addresses that this seems to be at least in the same range as the one listed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, oops? It's plausible, judging from the IP address. If we can confirm that this is one of the national routers, then we'll need to update Sensitive IP addresses. Considering the number of times the address has been blocked, including a recent 1 month blocks, I'm suprised this hasn't come up earlier. Caknuck 15:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've updated Sensitive IP addresses & MediaWiki:Blockiptext. WHOIS confirms it is a Qnet IP. Caknuck 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Qatar
Apologies... I didn't notice you did the original block... I emailed Netsnipe per my notes on WP:ANI. Personally I don't have an issue with a soft block there, I'd just get the Foundation's approval first. It probably didn't come up earlier because apparently Qatar now has 3 IPs. We should add something to the page welcoming them to 2007. :) --Isotope23 talk 15:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No worries. Considering that the IP just came off back to back 1-month and 24-day blocks, it's odd that it's only become an issue now. I have no concerns about you or Netsnipe acting immediately, considering the delicateness of the situation. Caknuck 16:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Rafees Mohamed
Hi Admin,

may i know why the page i created is deleted, how can get back the page what i created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.41.66 (talk) 12:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your page was deleted because it made no assertion of notability, cited no reliable sources and appeared to be an autobiography. Please review the policies on biographical articles, verifiability and the guideline on autobiographical articles. Caknuck 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Nowheristan
You have deleted my AfD article Nowheristan while I was in the middle of improving its contents, verifiability, and style. It was deleted incredibly shortly after I made my last modification by improving its introduction... I feel that a constructive deletion debate was wasted. I need to know whether you could restore it to AfD again and give me a chance to finalize it and prove it fit for Wikipedia. Bahaab 04:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time I deleted the article, there was a clear consensus to do so. Typically, "single purpose accounts" (like most of those who opined to keep the article) indicate inexperienced users who are unaware of Wikipedia policy or, as has happened in the past, may be fraudulent accounts created to sway a discussion. Because of that, these votes are regarded lightly.


 * As far as restoring the article, your best bet is to collect your sources and open a discussion at deletion review. If you can verify the information in the article and demonstrate Nowheristan's notability, then the article will be restored without problem. Let me know if you have any questions. Caknuck 05:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok well noted. Thank you. Bahaab 05:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthony Anderson (urinator)
I Would like to question the deletion of the Anthony Anderson (urinator) article. The case in this instance was significant because it went some way to re-interpreting the common law offence of outraging public decency to include non sexual outrages and those which did not appear to outrage bystanders at the time. The article should be restored and references given to the legal issues it gives rise to. In any case it should have been reviewed by admins with a legal background. It is also the subject of major UK public discussion and in the same way as the Megan Williams case and removing it weakens Wikipedia's credibility 195.128.250.104 00:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC) PKS


 * If you dispute the result of AfD, feel free to open a discussion at deletion review. Regardless if admins have a legal background, if an article fails to adhere to the established policies (in this case, WP:NOT), they will invariably delete it. Caknuck 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Menandwomenalbum.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Menandwomenalbum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Morgellons
I think the correct way to deal with it is by indef-blocking the User:Nielsp sockpuppets, rather than protecting the article. But I suppose the article might as well remain protected for a few more hours, anyway. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the source of these changes: . Herd of Swine 15:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate off-site canvassing. We'll see what happens when the protection expires, but (assuming you haven't done so yet) you may want to open up an RFC on the issue. Let me know if the revert wars start anew, and refer the matter to WP:3RR if the same activity resumes. Caknuck 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Restore Josephine Ho
Please put back Josephine Ho. She is known by millions here in Taiwan. Did you see her zh page? Jidanni 10:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you check http://www.google.com/search?q=josephine+ho ? Is she not famous? Why won't you put back the article so one can further document how famous she is? Instead you penalize us by telling us to recreate the article from scratch. Jidanni 23:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

63.3.10.130
It is a sock of User:Cowboycaleb1. I originally got him indef blocked after he was basically abusing Wikipedia. I filed a case at WP:SSP and he was indef-blocked. Since, I've been getting the "reset passwords" e-mails on a daily basis for the past few months. I've contacted Pascal.Tesson (who originally indef-blocked Caleb) via his talkapge. Please comment here if you have any more info if you wish. Thanks, Davnel03 21:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented on Pascal's talk page. Thanks, Caknuck 21:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another one, here. I suggest he is blocked for more than 72 hours for obvious sockpuppetry at this AFD. The history of this AFD gives a pretty good idea that there is sockpuppetry between the IP and the already indef-blocked SpeedyC1 (which was a sock of CowboyCaleb1). Any chance you could do a IP range block so that IP's from 63.3.10.1 to 63.3.10.4 are blocked? Is that possible? Thanks! (could you copy your reply onto my talkpage as I will probably forget to come back here). :) Davnel03 22:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

S Audios
Hi Caknuck, S Audios is not part of a Band, Group or in-corporated with any life person and any advertisement. Its just an Newly Formed small scale Audio distribution company. Ive no idea why you could label it for Speedy Deletion ? Ive placed a hangon tag and demand a discussion on which portion it will need to be corrected instead of mere deletion. Appreciate if you could stop deleting it ! -- Killerserv (talk) 03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Read what you wrote again and consider the phrase "...Newly Formed small scale Audio distribution company." That's exactly why the article was deleted: the company simply is not notable enough for inclusion. Caknuck 05:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Caknuck, intrestingly but most bizzarely ive removed the "Company" name from the S_Audios wikipage to something seemingly non-relevant. Hopefully that satisfies towards the removal of AFD against that wikipage. Do let me know if something else is not right. Appreciate your help.-- Killerserv (talk) 05:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are still a number of problems. Firstly, the sources your provided don't agree on the name of the company – one calls it "S Music" and the other calls it "S Audio", neither of which agree with the title of the article. Another huge concern is the fact that notability is not inherited. Just because S Pictures and Mr. Shankar are notable in the world of Indian cinema, this doesn't mean that the music company is immediately notable. At this moment, if the article was nominated for AfD (instead of a speedy deletion, as it currently stands), the result likely would be to change the article to redirect to S Pictures.


 * My advice is to try to locate a few more sources to a) confirm the correct English name of the music company and b) more firmly establish its notability.


 * Please let me know if you have any further concerns or questions. Thanks, Caknuck 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm you may be right i need to get more on the resources that firmly agree on the base name of the audio company and also the refrence. Thank you on guiding me on this. Really appreciate your help. :) -- Killerserv (talk) 09:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

reply to stubs
Thank you for the information about stubs.It is greatly appriciated.IslaamMaged126 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Stir-Fry
Hi Under what circumstances did you delete the Sonic Stir-Fry page? It is a legitimate radio program based in NSW Australia and I would feel confident that it is not the only radio program on wikipedia that is mentioned. Would you please explain why this was done and why it should not be put back up. I look forward to your reply Thanks and regards, Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misfit101 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Replied on my talk.► Chris Nelson Holla! 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crossed N and Y.jpg
I'd actually started a discussion about this image at the media copyright questions page.—Random832 22:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see you saw it. —Random832 22:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did. I felt that a) the nebulous copyright issue b) the invalid PD assertion and c) the fact that a near exact copy with a more valid fair use claim existed was all the reason I needed to go through with the speedy. It was the most expedient way to solve the problem. Let me know if you have any further concerns. Caknuck (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Motto
Just wondering, Caknuck, but where did your motto "It takes a pretty big duck to kill a bear" come from? I was so intrigued by it that I googled it, but it only really showed up here and on another website, which is apparently another profile of you. &mdash;ScouterSig 00:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I stole it from a guy I knew when I was in the Army Reserves in Canada. He had a bunch of nonsensical sayings like it. This one was the best of the bunch, so I've appropriated it. Caknuck (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking for feedback re: an otherwise WP:COI edit
Hi -- can you check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Baseballstats#Adding_a_Source and let me know what you think? Thanks! --DNL at ArmchairGM (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Responded at Template talk:Baseballstats -- Caknuck (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! This user created the article Dub ONE which you deleted. I'm guessing from the similarity between the name of the article and the username that the article was about himself. He also added himself on the list of famous people from Akron, Ohio. I deleted it citing questionable notability in my edit summary but he reverted my edit and added himself back on. In addition, he recreated the deleted page under the title Ian Wrobel (Dub One). I don't feel like getting into an edit/revert war with him. Could you help me with him? Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've given the user a 3RR warning about Akron, Ohio, and Ian Wrobel (Dub One) was speedied before I could get to it. If this keeps up, let me know. Thanks for the heads up. Caknuck (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked for 72 hours. Caknuck (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. By the way, what part of Canada are you from. I live in Kitchener, Ontario. I used to live in Windsor. SWik78 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Winnipeg, but I live in Dallas-Ft. Worth, Texas now.

Request for unprotection
You'll Never Walk Alone: I attempted to engage Barryob in conversation with the intention of resolving our dispute. He became unresponsive. For this reason, I wish to request page unprotection. smb (talk) 21:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No need to remove protection, the 1 week time frame lapsed earlier today. Caknuck (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ta. smb (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandal alert
hi, i'm only telling you about this cuz you were the last person to give this user a warning and it's a final one at that. they added some nonsense to Uffie that stood for 11 days before i just took it out. looks like that stupid "hen fap" meme rearing its head again as well. anyway, cheers for listening,  tomasz.  01:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * They haven't made any edits since my warning, so there isn't anything we can do now. Let me know if it starts up again. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?
You must have misread the page, that wasn't me. Therequiembellishere 21:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My comment was directed to the anon user calling you a... ahem... "butthole". Just trying to back you up, friend. Cheers, Caknuck 21:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You should put it on his talk page, I was just ticked off and went on the offensive. Therequiembellishere 21:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Restore Kowloon Junior School
Dear Gord,

I am writing on behalf of Kowloon Junior School (http://www.kjs.edu.hk/) and would like you to restore the page "Kowloon Junior School" Should you have any questions, please write me at leungc@kjs.esf.edu.hk anytime.

Thanks.

Yours, Christopher —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayhorn (talk • contribs) 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Christopher, as the article was deleted as a result of an AfD discussion, you will need to open a discussion at deletion review if you would like the article restored. Bear in mind that you will need to address the concerns raised by the contributors at AfD, otherwise the article probably won't be recreated. Please let me know if and when the topic is brought up at deletion review. Cheers, Caknuck 05:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Gord, thanks for your reply. I have created a new Deletion Review discussion as listed in the quoted paragraph, please kindly take a look at the discussion. And, could you tell me what were the concerns raised by the contributors at AfD? I am a new Wikipedia user and not familiar with the errors that I've made.


 * An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kowloon Junior School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Wayhorn 06:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Christopher, you can view the AfD discussion here. The chief concern was the assertion of notability of the school. I'd suggest taking a look at the proposed guideline for determining if a school is notable to get a good idea what the article should contain. Caknuck 08:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Gord, I think Option 2 in WP:SCHOOL would be appropriate route for our school which is located at Hong Kong. May I ask how to publish those multiple secondary sources and those items as additional criteria that can be used to demonstrate notability? Should I post to the discussion in Deletion Review page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.87.254.42 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. If you can find the necessary sources, link to them at the Deletion Review discussion. If those sources demonstrate sufficient notability I (or another admin) will recreate the article so you can add them in. Caknuck 07:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please talk to User:81.159.104.55‎
He started out as a good editor, but "subtlety" (they apparently don't know the meaning of the word) added vandalism to the Ali Abdullah Saleh page here. After a brief argument, he did a minor incsult, but this is absolutely unacceptable and extremely childish. Therequiembellishere 00:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have warned the editor in question. Please let me know if they make any more counterproductive edits.


 * On a related note, some of the comments you left on their talk page toed the line of civility. Statements like "And if you want it be a bad ass rebel, you've failed by being coward enough to only put vandalism on an obscure page." usually do nothing but provoke vandals (as it did with this individual). It's best to stick with the templated vandalism warnings for two reasons: 1) it facilitates reporting persistent vandals at WP:AIV and 2) it leaves no doubt (with experienced editors) that your dispute is content-related and not personal.


 * Let me know if you have any other questions or concerns. Caknuck 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Alrighty then, I'm afraid I've steeped on civility's toes quite a few times. Therequiembellishere 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most everybody gets frustrated with/at/because of this place on occasion. As a rule, it's a lot easier to have action taken against disruptive editors if you keep your involvement as impersonal as possible. Cheers, Caknuck 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You as well! Therequiembellishere —Preceding comment was added at 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re. Image:Blockade2.PNG
Hello Caknuck. The characters mean, well, "blockade". :-) That was the closest to "block" I could find to decorate the template. Best regards, Hús  ö  nd  17:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

2008 Boston Red Sox season
It wasn't really an official "vote"; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 4. Read the whole discussion and see what you think. It seems to be a consensus among some of the more active editors in this category to keep game logs currently being edited editable on the article, and then moved into a template upon their completion. jj137 ♠  Talk 20:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, after reading that more closely, I'd say only a few editors (but no worries). I'm trying to keep all of the game logs currently editable on the articles until their completion, when they can be moved into a template. However, this is only for the newer templates we create since that discussion; the game log templates created before that, completely or not, can stay where they are. Tell me what you think. (It seems to be easier to simply edit them there instead of going back and forth between the article and the template. That makes it confusing.)  jj137  ♠  Talk 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll go around and make sure the "versions" are manageable on the articles.  jj137  ♠  Talk 00:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, we should start another discussion to get consensus on this.  jj137  ♠  Talk</b> 00:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

84.236.89.208
Hello, you have reverted a removal of sock templates from User talk:84.236.89.208 and warned that user not to remove them again. This account is active again, doing the same disruptive edits as before the previous one month-long block. He has also removed the templates again[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A84.236.89.208&diff=171886508&oldid=145630057 and I had to restore them. Would it be possible to protect that page? Talk pages of other sockpuppets of the banned User:VinceB have been protected because he always tries to erase the templates from them. Since the account belongs to a banned user, would it be possible to block it again? I know IPs cannot be blocked indef., but the previous long block of this IP was very helpful in discouraging VinceB's activities. Tankred (talk) 02:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I'll keep an eye on it, and if they re-revert, I'll semi-protect it. Based on the areas of contribution (articles about eastern Europe, specifically Slovakia), I'm relatively confident it's VinceB at that IP. Let me know if I can do anything else to help. Caknuck (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your swift reply. It would be great if this IP of a banned user could be blocked again. There have been six edits from it today and several edits in November - none of them constructive. They are very similar to VinceB's edits in their choice of targets and POV. Fortunately, the number of affected pages is small this time. Thaks again. Tankred (talk) 03:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Asugff‎
Can I ask you to review the block (upwards)? They were already listed at WP:AIV for vandalism and WP:Civil issues as well as sockpuppetry. Thanks Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * He's now back as User:Asugffff Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. Caknuck (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Back again as User:FucingDCGeist who has transferred their attention to John Alton. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Let me know if any other puppets pop up or if John Alton needs protection. Caknuck (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Getting more creative now. User:Osama Bin Bush Clinton. Maybe semi-protect John Alton? Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone else beat me to blocking that one. I'll semi-protect it for a week. Caknuck (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)User:Newasder - can't edit the articles so is leaving me messages. Another sockpuppet, I guess. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a request at WP:RFCU/IP to figure out where the edits are coming from & if a range block or report to the ISP would help. Let me know if the new sock account becomes abusive. Maybe you can explain a few things about the policies at hand and try to come to a consensus on the apparent content dispute. Caknuck (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See [|this diff] - I don't think there's a content dispute, I think it's vandalism masquerading as a content dispute. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Same user now making trouble on Punk rock and Sex Pistols. Wwwhatsup (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser case completed
Hi, A checkuser IP Check case you filled has been completed by a CheckUser, and archived. You can find the results for 7 days at Requests for checkuser/IP check/Archive. -- lucasbfr <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk, checkuser clerk, 12:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC).

Reply
Hello, Caknuck. I reported him due to a comment here. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't scroll far enough down. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Happy editing! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

65.191.221.177 is right back at it again
As soon as your block expired, this editor went right back to blanking on the Lumbee article. Also, exactly the same blanking edits that 65.191.221.177 is doing were also made by 70.63.79.58.Verklempt (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Resolved Blocked for 1 week this time. Caknuck (talk) 21:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism account
User:Arotchieeman has only made two edits, both vandalism. []Verklempt (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have issued the appropriate warning. If the user persists, please let me know and/or report to WP:AIV. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Continuing problem editors on the Lumbee page
We have a new account, User:Fbil, making exactly the same reversions on the Lumbee article as the 65.191.221.177 who you just blocked. Fbil has violated the 3-revert rule after being warned several times.Verklempt (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has been protected, so that should solve the problem. Caknuck (talk) 14:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

 *  jj137  ♠ 01:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)