User talk:Caulde/Archive/21

Thanks for your support!
Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Report request
Hi Rudget, I'd like to request a WikiProject report on WikiProject Video games. If you're interested in doing one, please reply on WT:VG. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-03-13 23:13


 * I second this request :) dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I've already got next week's slot booked for the Tropical Cyclones Project. Does the 24th sound alright? Rudget . 11:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds great! How do we proceed? JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-03-15 21:13

A&R
Thanks for the block on this one, but shouldn't the Crazed Hits link also be deleted. Please see my comment on the discussion page. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page undeletion
Thanks for restoring February 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra. Can you also restore its talk page, which may have some useful discussion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Rudget . 10:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't realize that the talk page was essentially blank or I wouldn't have bothered asking for its undeletion. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

STARS methodology page deletion
Hello Rudget, I would like to respond to the allegation that Isabel de Pablo is a sock puppet and the reason you gave for deleting the STARS Methodology page. First I wish to clearly state that I only have one account and I use my real name. If you check the IP addresses you will see that I live in Switzerland. Secondly Isabel de Pablo is a real person living in Spain (again please check IP addresses) who is a user of the methodology and wrote the page. She approached me to write about STARS and naturally I am pleased she did this. She is not (and never has been) an agent or paid by me in any way. She used openly available information, including my web site GNU Free Document License pages, and articles published in the American Society for Quality magazine, which they independently verify and edit to ensure accuracy. The ASQ have trust that STARS is a serious methodology and I believe the publication by ASQ meets Wikipedia's requirements for proper reference sources. I would therefore politely support Isabel's request that the page be reinstated, and welcome your help.Hanvanloon (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here the page content when it was deleted. It is clearly promotional and does not encourage or account for the NPOV guideline here on en.wp. What is the sockpuppetry situation? I don't recall being involved in any such discussion. Rudget . 16:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and for sending the link to the deleted page. According to the Wikipedia NPOV policy as I understand it, the article must be written as far as possible without bias, contain all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Is this a correct interpretation? Under this NPOV policy, is the American Society for Quality (ASQ) considered to be a reliable source? It is one of the major (if not the ultimate) quality management organizations in the USA. If it is a reliable source, then surely the article meets the NPOV requirements? What should otherwise be altered in the article to meet the NPOV requirements? I am sure that Isabel would like to know and comply with these requirements.--Hanvanloon (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Afternoon...
...so, a month in, and I'm starting to look to stretch my horizons a bit. I'm fine on blocking and unblocking of all varieties, protection, reviewing blocks, deletion and restoration, and have dipped my foot into WP:SSP as there seems to be a constant backlog. Any suggestions where I could look to move into next? GBT/C 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's always ANI and AN :) Rudget . 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Got 'em both watchlisted, and contribute where relevant. I was thinking of a more janitorial area which needs admin attention, but as it's not so glamorous, quick, easy, or whatever, doesn't get the amount of attention it deserves. Any ideas? GBT/C 16:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm... let me try and find something... :D Rudget . 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a few places I can think of, but they don't really need administrators, just good users and good judgement: WP:MEDCAB, WP:30, WP:AN3, WP:RFCU (block when confirmed etc.) and you could even try WP:AC to train to become a clerk, but that takes a long time... Rudget . 16:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you - will have a look and see where I can be of help! GBT/C 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't believe it's been a month! It's gone mighty quick. I'm trying to focus on article work now though, and still help out at WP:FPOC. I find it quite relaxing and an very enjoyable experience. Rudget . 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

AC
Yup, I'm still up for it. Unfortunately I am buried in tons of coursework at the moment so it will have to wait a few days. I hope you understand. :) αѕєηιηє t/c 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Vote withdrawal
Just out of interest but why did you withdraw your vote at the rfa of geni? --Camaeron (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See my neutral. Rudget . 17:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok ; p --Camaeron (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool
Loving the box at the top of your user page (that Contributions, Userboxes, Awards and Other bit, incase you've no idea what im on about). It keeps everything very neat, how did you make it? --Camaeron (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Look at the source of User:Rudget/header-up, then you can say "ahh, I see what you did there" :) JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2008-03-16 23:04

I actually meant the one on his userpage! --Camaeron (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Gilanyan
Why did you delete the article for copyright violation when that had been at least edited out of the current version? Now it can just go back up and have to go through an AfD again, rather than establishing notability or not, quickly, this time. In addition this encourages editors to simply leave copyvios sitting up on Wikipedia, because they'll eventually be deleted.... This is irresponsible. The copyright violation should have been edited into the history, as I did, then administratively removed, and the AfD continued. Wikipedia does not take problems seriously, like copyright violations, and inaccuracies, so they keep occurring. It's tiresome seeing Wikipedia articles appear at the top of search engine results, articles that are inaccurate, copyright violations, worthless. Editors and administrators need to take this seriously and be responsible. I can predict your "'outraged Wikipedian' than 'anybody' would speak to" you response, so no need to. --69.226.108.255 (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Boey
Thank you for your response. Is there anything I can do to stop this constant deletion/recreation by these multiple admins? Its really getting out of hand.

Thanks Succisa75 (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cab gmbh deleted
Hi, ma page was a description of the company CAB. It was not a SPAM or a COI, i readed wiki articles about that. I did exactly the same as ZEBRA for exemple : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_Technologies Could i know the reason ? thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludovic19 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for deletion is obvious
Please read more here: User_talk:Nightscream. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks for your help. Nightscream (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

...
User:21655  Two One Six Five Five  τʃ 18:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You've been blocked
Hahaha, yeah I just happened to catch it on the watchlist each time, lol, and here's your own funny header :P  « Gonzo fan2007  (talk ♦ contribs)  18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Dont worry
Don't worry I created my own wierd but wonderful navigation! Thanks anyway though and Keep up the good work in the Rfa department ; ) --Camaeron (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your kind comment and award. I will transfer it to My awards page, I have been so looking forward to one of these! Thanks!! --Camaeron (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Protection Request
With all due respect, I STRONGLY suggest that you reconsider your decision to decline my protection request on Todd Schnitt, MJ Morning Show, and Bubba the Love Sponge. If you were to review the edit histories in closer detail, you will noticed that - particularly on the Todd Schnitt article - there is an established pattern of IP vandalism. Reviewing those edits, it is apparent that the edits are coming from listeners of Bubba the Love Sponge, as it has appeared to be his personal goal since returning to terrestrial radio to make MJ's life "a living hell." He frequently talks about MJ on the air and the lawsuit that was filed today is likely to result in not only his on-air discussions of MJ increasing, but also an increase in his fans hitting all of the articles involved and "cheerleading."

Respectfully, --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

copyright violation ?
hi, Today I created my first page, which you just seem to have deleted due a blatant copyright infringement.. I noticed that the bot had found a webpage with the same text as the newly created page, so I followed the 'what to do now' and stated in the 'talk page' on the newly created page that there was no copyright infringment because the site in question borrowed this text from the original source (which I mentionned)..

hmm this sounds confusing.. so I created a page about a 'Who's Who' with the text that accompagnies the online version, but another website also has used this original text and now the bot suggested that I took the text from this third website, but in fact it is the other way, so this isn't a blatant copyright infringement imo, so can this page be restored ?

18:18, 18 March 2008 Rudget (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Who is Who in African Art" ‎ (CSD G8 - talk page of a deleted page)

18:18, 18 March 2008 Rudget (Talk | contribs) deleted "Who is Who in African Art" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: http://www.buyafricanantiques.com/whoiswho.htm)

--Bruno.Claessens (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Albany1.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Albany1.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC) --Polly (Parrot) 22:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Intercontinental Hotelcorp Logo.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Intercontinental Hotelcorp Logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Withington
With all due respect, I fail to see what is "incorrect" about my changes, so please do tell me.


 * The dialling codes are certainly not incorrect (I can provide citation for this). They may not be consistent with other GM articles, but that doesn't make them wrong, and I am willing to make this case at WP:GM if necessary.


 * Concerning the student population of Withington, your original lead-in is, in my view, potentially misleading as it could easily be interpreted as stating that the area is predominantly inhabited by students; whilst there is a sizeable student population, this phrasing overlooks (by failing to mention) the sizeable other demographics. My re-wording is both clearer and more consistent with the h2hg citation which you originally provided in the Transport section - quite bizarrely actually, as that point didn't really have much to do with transportation hence the reason I moved it. I also think that it is generally pretty bad form to remove a useful citation simply because you don't like the wording; citations re-enforce the authority of an article - admittedly h2g2 isn't the best source, but the point still stands.


 * With regards to the Parliamentary Constituency matter, I feel that Withington the constituency and Withington the village are two substantially different topics, both in terms of subject matter and as geographical area (the boundaries are substantially different for a start); this point is quite clearly established by the fact that there have been two separate articles for the two separate topics for quite some time. Your original wording begins the article with Withington is a village and parliamentary constituency [...] - this could quite easily be taken to imply that the article intends to cover both subjects rather than being concerned primarily with the former and simply touching on the latter; whilst you do make a link to Manchester Withington (UK Parliament constituency) you name that link as simply "parliamentary constituency" which a reader could quite easily assume to be just a link to the Parliamentary constituency article and completely overlook the fact that there is a separate article on this particular constituency. If you honestly believe that the Withington article ought to cover both topics - I for one don't - then I suggest starting a debate on the matter by proposing an article merger, rather than what appears to be a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters between the two through ambiguous wording! My rephrasing emphasised the differences between the two separate articles and made the fact that Withington was merely one of many towns in the Manchester Withington constituency much clearer!


 * Finally, since your reversion, you have also added an additional point that the UoM and MMU combined have the largest UK student population. Not only is this point completely meaningless (for instance you could try to claim that all the London Universities combined have the largest student population in the UK or for that matter that all the universities in England combined have the largest student population in the UK!), but it also overlooks the point that UoM by itself has the largest population of any single campus university, a far more meaningful statement.

So yes, please tell me exactly what I have changed that is "incorrect". I appreciate your improvements to this article which are for the most part constructive and highly beneficial, but you have to realise - admin or not - that good articles come from constructive collaboration rather than reverting changes at a whim because you don't like them or because they deviate from previous standards even if those standards might be questionable and could be open to constructive debate. Otherwise you could be be accused of bloody-mindedness, which I am sure is not the case.

I am now going to revert your reversion in the hope that instead you'll raise your points for public debate in the appropriate article or wikiproject discussion pages, so as to reach a more reasoned consensus and hopefully also bring other opinions and interest into this article.

-- Fursday 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not revert most of your changes, I just made the changes to the lead-in and a couple of other points for the reasons I stated above. Besides which you were the one who started with the blanket revert - which was kind of my entire point!


 * I am very pleased and grateful for your contributions to this article in general - perhaps I should have emphasised this more; I share in your aim to improve the articles quality, and by absolutely no means whatsoever do I want to dissuade you from your continuation! Blanket reverts - at least those without prior discussion - can come over a bit heavy-handed and are likely to ruffle people's feathers! Especially if you're reverting many different changes for different reasons all in one go. You must admit that I did have at least a valid argument w.r.t. the above and I'd rather have an argument about the changes than a revert-war, which is what this boils down to.


 * Regarding the dialling codes, you may well be right that this goes against established style, and in that context please do revert them and let me argue the case in the appropriate channels.


 * -- Fursday 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice
Can you tell me if I was right to investigate and follow up on |1 this edit made by ShieldDane? I don't want to spark the whole situation off again! Igniateff (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * He creates his account the day the other account was banned. And he is drawn to dead topic where he feels he needs to put in his two cents? Not to mention he tells me to stop 'trolling' that page, when it's obvious after my 'owned' I had no further interest in posting there. Was I right? Was I wrong? Perhaps a little of both, but i feel the spirit in which he interceded is wrong, and more than that I suspect he isn't who he would claim to be. ShieldDane (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ani#Igniateff_is_Joshuarooney —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShieldDane (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alphonso M. Lunt
I noticed that you deleted this article do to copyright infringement however the information contained on the article was not subject to copyright laws and is available as free information from the government. If you check the reference that was on the article it will lead you to a United States Army website. Please restore this article at your earliest convenience.--Kumioko (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Portal promotions
Hello. Are you aware that the bot updates the talk page and adds the featured portal star? Gimmetrow 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

FPOC Portal:James Bond
What is the IE you stated on the FPOC page? Ultra! 17:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Internet Explorer. It may just be my one. :P Rudget . 17:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials
Thanks again; I fear I may have to come back soon. As I said on the page's talk, it's been a lovely three months with semi, then yesterday it all started again!! And as the new series starts in a fortnight, people are more anxious to add rubbish than ever... I'm afraid you'll have to expect me coming asking for reprotection :-( —TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, very good, thanks! <small style="white-space:nowrap;size:95%;color:#2F74FF">—<small style="background:#FFFFFF;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">TreasuryTag —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">t —<small style="background:#DBDBDB;border:#EB8500 1px solid;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px">c 17:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

User:NewYorkDreams...
...is requesting a review of their block from you in particular. Thought I'd let you know. GBT/C 06:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the rollback granting — wow, you're fast! Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

STARS Methodology - Reliable source
Hello again, I did not see any response on whether you consider the American Society for Quality to be a reliable source that meets the requirement for NPOV. Could you please advise? --Hanvanloon (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that you know the editorial policy of the American Society for Quality (ASQ). Every article is first reviewed by a minimum of two people (sometimes 3) to decide whether the article is a serious, factually accurate item and of interest to its readers. For articles they accept, there then follows an intense editing regime, the editor works closely with the author. Finally it is reviewed again by another reviewer and any additional edits made. This is a very rigorous process. It takes at least 6 months from submission to publication. It is why I believe quoting any article published by them is a reliable source and meets the WP:SPAM, WP:NORand WP:NPOV criteria. That is why I find Daniel Penfield's attitude to be enormously offensive. I tried to have a reasonable discussion with him but he just used policies as hammers, and has changed his position/interpretation several times as well as taking actions that I have to interpret as breach of the WP policies he has thrown at me. While I am not a long term contributor to Wikipedia and acknowledge I have made some mistakes in my early editing, it is people like him that make me questions whether I should just give up and pull all my contributions back. --Hanvanloon (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The source isn't the reason why the page was deleted, so focusing on that will no re-instate the page. As the page can be seen by non-admins at User:Rudget/STARS methodology - it is clear that the pages intention is to promote. Also, can I ask again why sockpuppetry was mentioned in your first query here, you don't seem to have written any more regarding that issue, which is more important than restoring the page, IMO. Rudget . 16:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again, in my work I only get occasional times in the evening to write. To answer your comments in order. 1. The page is promoting a methodology that is available under GNU Free document license and considered serious enough for ASQ to publish. A quick search under STARS gives a page: S.T.A.R.S. Members (Resident Evil), would you consider this as promotional? Another page from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star - goes to http://science.howstuffworks.com/star1.htm, this page definitely promotes and runs advertisements!! I guess this confuses me, why don't editors delete these links, they seem far worse to me than another editor (Isabel de Pablo) linking to a GNU Free doc licensed page without advertisements. --Hanvanloon (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2. I reread the user talk page of Isabel de Pablo and found that it was Daniel Penfield made the allegation of commercial interest as the reason to delete the page, i.e. he implied that she was a sockpuppet. She has actually responded to this on her talk page but there has been no reply to her (which I think is rather poor). Reading what she wrote, I think she considers restoring the page to more important than the sockpuppetry issue. Furthermore Penfield clearly wrote this to Helixweb who restored a PDCA text section without any links --Hanvanloon (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)--
 * -- [# (cur) (last) 16:44, 17 March 2008 Helixweb (Talk | contribs) (2,478 bytes) (→"Some of the content looked okay from my first quick glance.") (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 13:40, 17 March 2008 DanielPenfield (Talk | contribs) (1,779 bytes) (+WTF, redux) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 13:39, 17 March 2008 DanielPenfield (Talk | contribs) (1,664 bytes) (+WTF) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 09:09, 17 March 2008 Helixweb (Talk | contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo)
 * (cur) (last) 15:42, 16 March 2008 DanielPenfield (Talk | contribs) (3,498 bytes)(Special:Contributions/Hanvanloon) (undo)
 * [(13:39, 17 March 2008 DanielPenfield (Talk | contribs) (1,664 bytes) (+WTF) (undo)) "Some of the content looked okay from my first quick glance." You never directly answered the question posed in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHelixweb&diff=198819168&oldid=198645301 . Am I to assume you're sweeping it under the carpet?
 * Yes, I am. Helixweb (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What's the point in having a WP:SPAM policy if you're just going to roll over when a spammer complains that vigilant editors have removed his website/publications for sale from articles after repeated warnings? What's the point in having a WP:NOR policy if you're just going to give in when a crackpot complains when his pet theory is challenged? What's the point in having a WP:COI policy if you're going to look the other way when a spammer complains when sham articles set up by his crony/sockpuppet/shill account are deleted per Wikipedia policy (viz., Wikipedia:Proposed deletion).
 * It appears you're misinterpreting my comments. I never said not to remove his website, his NOR or his created articles. I said you need to calm down a bit, which I think given your tone towards me, is an entirely warranted criticism. Remember to be CIVIL at all times. This scorched-earth policy of yours to undo every single one of his edits is proof that you are NOT taking the high ground, and will likely antagonize him further. You would be a much better editor if you read WP:Civil a couple more times. Helixweb (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC).]
 * BTW, is there a standard way to quote/mark these extractions? As you have previously stated on your user page that you are involved in the sockpuppet submission board I can see how Penfield's allegations would trigger a rapid deletion. So apologies if I was not clear in separating the two components of the sockpuppetry and subsequent page deletion. To further inform you why I think this is a vendetta rather than unbiased editing, here is a further exchange between Penfield and Helixweb.--Hanvanloon (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * From what I've seen you've undid many of his edits to his own talk page, which I believe is bad form. Helixweb (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)]   --
 * I have added the talk page reference for you if you wish to go there directly to make sure I am not making this up.--Hanvanloon (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have admitted to making some mistakes when initially editing (i.e. doing it anonymously). BTW, Penfield did this too at times. At no time did I reference web site pages that try to sell anything from the pages I wrote (Quality Management, PDCA), the links are to GNU Free document license information pages about PDCA, the methodology, ISO15504 info, etc. This was in fact better than several external links that existed on the PDCA page when I first edited it (and that occurs on many other pages too). So (maybe incorrectly) I did the same. I have not even made any external links for several months. Penfield has kept external web site links that actually DO try to sell things (from PDCA link to ASQ page - they sell their Quality Toolbox at the bottom of their PDCA page). So while he likes to quote policies, he is at best inconsistent in applying them, at worst he is acting as Helixweb notes (scorched-earth approach). In fact I tried to engage him in an equitable discussion about these points some time ago but he edited my page, so I gave up. --Hanvanloon (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to contact the lady who wrote the STARS methodology page, but she appears to be unreachable at the moment. I noted before that if you perform an IP address check it will show that I cannot be this person. If it helps, I can try to get into contact with her and arrange a three way discussion so that it is absolutely clear that she is not me.--Hanvanloon (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long discussion but I feel that it is easy for Penfield to accuse me and harder for me to defend myself. My perception is that being a loud critic is far easier than being a content editor. I appreciate your time to read and respond. --Hanvanloon (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Since I believe your main aim is to restore the article, I am declining mainly because of the deletion I carried out and per Deletion review/Log/2008 March 16, where five editors endorsed the deletion. Regards, Rudget . 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)