User talk:Davewild/Archive 6

Welcome to WikiProject Elections and Referenda!
Welcome, Davewild, to WikiProject Elections and Referenda! Thank you for joining this fledgling project. Please participate in the discussions on the talk page and check the to-do list from time to time. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask me. @harej 21:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * After considerable planning, election has been created. Please take a look at it and leave feedback on the WikiProject talk page. @harej 02:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Western Australian daylight savings referendum, 2009
Hello! Your submission of Western Australian daylight savings referendum, 2009 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calmer  Waters  01:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Western Australian daylight savings referendum, 2009

 * Nice job. –Moondyne 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!
It's my first go at policy-writing, so I wasn't sure what all needed to be done. U A  21:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Best Wishes for the Holidays, Jusdafax  06:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

user:Professional Assassin
Hi. The article Taraneh Javanbakht has been nominated for deletion by user:Professional Assassin, a user who has been recently blocked in fawiki, because of insulting many users and modifying the fawiki articles. The article Taraneh Javanbakht has the wikipedia criteria to be kept, as it has been kept in another nominee in 2008. Please take into account that user:Professional Assassin has misused several accounts in fawiki which have all been blocked by user:Mardetanha and that is probable that he/she uses several accounts in the english wikipedia to vote for the article deletion. Zohairani (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominating an article for a second time is allowed (it has been a reasonable length of time since the last nomination) and the best thing you can do is to argue your case for keeping the article on the AFD and explaining how it meets the relevant notability guideline - Notability (people). Being blocked on another wikipedia is not grounds for blocking here on this wikipedia (and that applies the other way round). However if you feel Professional Assassin is breaking policies here on wikipedia then you can report them to the relevant noticeboard such as Sockpuppet investigations or Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This should not be done as a preventative action but only if you have actual evidence of misconduct here on this wikipedia. Davewild (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Without any doubt this user is a sockpuppet of this one. According to WP:DUCK. lol :) --Professional Assassin (talk) 21:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Professional Assassin has used several sockpuppets in fawiki and all his/her accounts have been blocked in there. these are some of them:


 * Persian Robin Hood
 * Mitra Javanrooh
 * Jokermanxxx
 * Truth Seeker
 * Professional Assassin
 * And many other accouns that I donn't remember. You can vote for the deletion of any article in the english wikipedia, but can't modify words to mislead the users or vote two times in the discussion page of any article. But considering that you are insulting me here, I don't vote thousands of times in the discussion pages of the articles and I don't propose the mistranslation of the articles to the users of Wikipedia, as you do. 132.208.68.173 (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Very funny indeed. I think your are using sockpuppets here in English Wiki by editing article and debates with different names and IPs. This new IP of yours can be added to the sockpuppetry investigation too! :)--Professional Assassin (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My IP has been checked before by the administrations. I have never voted two times in Wikipedia and have never used it twice in debates of Wikipedia. Zohairani (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is very obvious even in this talk page. All of a sudden an IP (from Quebec where this person according to her article resides) enters the debates and starts to dig out another Wiki. It is also interesting that, it is the first edit of this IP in Wikipedia. lol :))--Professional Assassin (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please could you both stop holding this 'discussion' on my talk page, Sockpuppet investigations is the proper place if either of you has evidence. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care if she uses sockpuppets or not. I just wanted to clarify that she does ANYTHING to keep her article in wikipedia, although it does not meet notability guidelines. I am not interested in such childish acts like sockpuppet investigation etc...--Professional Assassin (talk) 14:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The person with these sockpuppets:

has shown childich asts to insult users and being blocked everywhere. I don't think that Mrs. Javanbakht minds the article that the users edit about her in Wikipedia. Zohairani (talk) 15:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Persian Robin Hood
 * Mitra Javanrooh
 * Jokermanxxx
 * Truth Seeker
 * Professional Assassin
 * Mrs Javanbakht = User:Zohairani? Otherwise how do you know if she minds or not? lol :))) --Professional Assassin (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Davewild! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Sokrat Jinjolia -
 * 2) Johnson Roussety -

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 03:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

script
Sorry about those unintended results. I was tired at the time. Tony  (talk)  03:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi. Just a quick message to say thank you for supporting the David Pugh (Conservative politician) article while it was nominated for deletion. The end result was keep, so thanks for the vote :) Editor5807speak 21:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Bobby Valentino songs
Category:Bobby Valentino songs,, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — ξ xplicit  03:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Nauruan parliamentary election, 2003
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my mistake. Secretlondon (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Dominican Republic presidential election, 2000
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reykjavik City Council election, 2010
Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wow. Hekerui (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Grenadian general election, 1999
Courcelles (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Cricketing Nicknames
Hi, Dave. Have done some work along the lines you suggested on the cricketing nicknames - happy to hear your views. It's a bit piecemeal - I do some when I;m in the mood.... Best! WillE (talk) 12:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I had the same problem with reverts - it was described as "a bot reversal" by a techie, but it doesn't seem to still be happening. I am indeed aiming for removal of all unsourced, unless it is a very famous one that inexplicably is no listed on cricinfo (Fast Fanie and the King of Spain for example) where I'm leaving a notation. Best wishes, Will WillE (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Message for Davewild
For Transformers(2007 film) plot, I changed the ending by saying Optimus became evil and Megatron became good. Optimus didn't become evil. Megatron was still evil. People put false info on wikipedia sometimes. If it was bad for me to put lies at the end of Transformers(2007 film plot), then why is it bad? If someone looks at it, then it's obvious that he/she won't believe it? (1751Muscat (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)).
 * Firstly the more inaccuracies entered the more people will think the same as yourself and will enter their own wrong information onto wikipedia as well. Secondly someone who does not know anything about the film but came to wikipedia to find out about it could have been misled by the change. Most basically just because people do bad things does not mean that other people have to as well - improve wikipedia to make it a great resource, don't damage it. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

PC
This new PC reviewer thing is a bit of a nuisance isn't it. I "accepted" Snap powerslam because it wasn't obvious vandalism. I was then going to revert it in the usual way with an edit summary explaining why. However, the load time for the PC bit is so slow you got there first. I shall raise the processing speed at the relevent talk page. I am not at all convinced about this new process   :(  Fainites barley scribs  21:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see we just did it again on David Silva :). Strictly a reviewer should accept as you did according to the instructions, but a normal editor would revert. So what I have been doing is reverting where I am certain the edit is inappropriate at all just like a normal editor, as the most straightforward process. Davewild (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well if it's on an article I know about so I know it's nonsense - I can just revert. If I really don't know I leave it. It's the ones in between where it's unsourced or otherwise problematical but not obviously bad faith where the load time is a problem - when you want to leave an edit summary. Oh well. Fainites barley scribs 21:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that is what I did on both of the 2 edits where we both acted on. I only use rollback itself on edits that are clearly vandalism imo. Anyway where could be some ambiguity I revert manually and leave an edit summary but just don't bother accepting the edit first. Davewild (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Whats "...a reviewer should accept as you did.......but a normal editor would revert". Am I abnormal or subnormal? Or Supranormal?Fainites barley scribs 21:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry probably my bad wording - what I was trying to say was according to my reading of Reviewing (I could be wrong) the edits we are discussing should not be rejected. However if Pending Changes did not exist then the changes would have been reverted, with the same effect as accepting then reverting. Davewild (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just joking! I agree with you but there has been alot of confusion about this I must say. I can see it becoming a big issue on the ANI boards in the near future. That sort of "government by filing clerk" creeping bureaucracy that is all so well meaning but makes life more complicated.Fainites barley scribs 21:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan Isaby
Why was this page deleted?

It was clearly not just a re-created version of a previously deleted page - it was last deleted in January 2008, before the person in question was notable, but this is no longer the case. The page was clearly notable and that nobody decided to respond to my comments on the talk page (or if they did, they did not alert me to any response) is a ridiculous betrayal of fairness. SE7 T alk/C ontribs 20:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I speedy deleted this page because it did not address the concerns that led to it's deletion back in 2008 - in particular that if failed the notability guideline. The new creation only had one reference - to Conservative Home, which is not a reliable source, and from which substantial parts of the article appear to have been copied which is also a copyright problem. This was covered in the reply to yourself on the talk page by VernoWhitney which was as follows:-


 * "Well, the first "complaint" was that the article was deleted before as being non-notable. I can't see the old version of the article so I don't know how much worse of it was. I have just now added the additional speedy delete tag as the vast majority of the article has been copied apparently in violation of copyright, which merits deletion regardless of notability."


 * You are welcome to either take this decision to deletion review if you think it is incorrect or create a new version of the article that does not have any part of it copied from another source and which includes references to reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Why CSD
If you're curious, the CSD you declined was nominated as CSD because it reads like an essay, original research, neologism, and advertising. These types of articles don't have clear-cut CSD, but often I see admins WP:IAR these to avoid the SNOW AFD. It's usually 85% deletion on these essay types, so I thought I'd go that route again. I took this to AFD. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 21:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I declined speedy deletion on this article as the reasons cited essay, original research and neologism are things which policy specifically says should not be speedy deleted. As such I will continue to decline them. I also note the discussion is definitely not heading towards a snow delete at the moment (although it may end up as a delete, I don't know). Davewild (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize those things are in the CSD list of not CSD, but my experience shows when something is pure rubbish, admins are more than happy to IAR and just get it done. Maybe this article isn't as blatant as others. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Raavi Bhatkar
I accept that you deleted! It presently does not indicate the importance, but soon will change the world. I understand you dont care it now. ok no problem. But remember the same name will come up in future again with some real achievement. If you feel some thing wrong, do edit & make changes. You are discouraging the upcoming minds. Its not fair. I request you please avoid this. This encyclopedia could be much better if it’s earlier updated, thus I shared. Thank You! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.1.160 (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid wikipedia only accepts articles that can be verified to reliable secondary sources without original research. In order for an article to be written it needs to meet the notability guideline by having significant coverage such as in the press, journals, etc. Wikipedia does not accept contributions where the importance or significance of the subject have not been established before the article is created. Davewild (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

--117.254.200.94 (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing guidelines. I'll try to be more specific in further contributions. Oh! Now I understood, Wikipedia only flags issues already covered by press. I'll find some other reliable sources.

Thank you again!!

Speedy delation of the article Queeria
Hi,

Queeria is an important LGBT-movement in Serbia, so I don't unterstand why the article had to be deleted. There also wasn't a voting how I'm accustomed them by the German and Serbian Wikipedia. Consider, the English Wikipedia is not only a local and national Wikipedia like the German or Serbian, it's rather an international and global Wikipedia because English today is the leading world language, the modern koine. It must also give a place to articles which maybe seem, for example, for US-american relations less notable. Greetings. --Carski (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, the English Wikipedia has a set of criteria where an admin can delete pages without it going through a discussion. One of the criteria for organisations is that the articles can be deleted where the article does not indicate the importance or significance of the organisation that the article is about. Regretfully the article as written did not seem to do this.


 * However if you would like I can userfy the article to your userspace (e.g. at User:Carski/Queeria) where you can work on the article to show it's importance. In order to achieve long term survival on this wikipedia the article would need to show significant coverage in reliable sources (not necessarily in English) to establish notability. Once this has been done you can then move the article back to the main article namespace. Let me know and I can do this. Davewild (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it's okay.


 * I wanted to show a variously spectrum of NGOs in Serbia. I will pass the discussion here to the guys on Queeria, and if they want, they should look after it. Greetings. --Carski (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Bass Charity Vase
You reverted the csd tag on Bass Charity Vase, which is fair enough. But I'd draw your attention to the following: So, possibly not a hoax, just a barrow-load of hogwash. And that's without checking the so-called "records". Jimmy Pitt  talk  19:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article claims that the vase was founded in 2000 and that the only winner (10 times) has been Burton.
 * In fact, the competition was founded in 1889, and though Burton have indeed won the last four finals, they lost the previous four (2002-2005), and were not even in the final in 2000 or 2001.
 * The only year for which the article lists the correct finalists or score is 2009; in every other year, the score and the finalists (other than Burton) are wrong.
 * You are quite right, my mistake for not checking further. Given the fact that there was virtually no correct information in the article, I have speedied it as a blatant hoax. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Davewild (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dealing with it. Jimmy Pitt   talk  21:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangetouch
As i am new to this i dont really understand your reasoning for tagging my article as spam! i have read other articles on many bands at wikpidia and tryed to follow the same format where did i go wrong?

Thomas McCallum (strangetouch) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strangetouch (talk • contribs) 12:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There were a number of problems with the page I deleted. The mian problem for which it was deleted was that it read as very promotional. Articles on wikipedia need to be written from a neutral point of view, phrases such as "It would be easy to follow the pack, but our aim is to appeal to a wider audience with our music" and "To describe Strangetouch as just another alternative rock band would not be doing them justice" are not neutrally written and the article could only be read as promotional.


 * The text and your username also demonstrate a conflict of interest, it is strongly advised that you should not edit articles where you have a conflict of interest.


 * Finally for articles on music groups to be accepted on wikipedia they need to meet the relevant notability guideline - which in this case is Notability (music). Music groups need to chart, win a major award and/or have significant coverage in independent reliable sources - such as newspapers, books etc. Davewild (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangetouch (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you for your reply and although i do not wholy agree i accept your decision

Thomas 15;06 july 17th 2010

deletion of draft public viewing
hi, can you please explain why you deleted the draft of public viewing? 87.162.92.165 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, it was created in the talk namespace i.e. at Talk:Public viewing rather than as a normal article at Public viewing. Talk pages which do not have an article to go with them are deleted. If you want to create such an article you need to either register an account or use the Articles for creation process. Davewild (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I left a request on the "Articles for creation"-page, can you please restore what I wrote? 87.162.92.165 (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have restored and moved the content you created to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Public viewing within the Articles for creation process. Davewild (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Johnny Chesthair
Johnny Chesthair: So if in  your view it's not  a CSD, what kind of tag would be appropriate?--Kudpung (talk) 15:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would go for a WP:PROD, it doesn't meet any speedy criteria imo, so that would be the next logical step to delete the article. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) --Kudpung (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for help on my sandbox (adding nowiki tag). I didn't know you could do that.... A relative newbie is appreciative. Settlet (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem Davewild (talk) 15:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

David Brez Carlisle
Hi, I noticed you deleted this as a copyvio of an offline source yesterday. It's been recreated, is the current version still a copyvio or has it been rewritten? Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it was mostly a repost of the article I speedy deleted yes, and that had previously been deleted at David B Carlisle. The reason that it was known that it was a copyright violation was that the original version stated "From Eve and Alan Southward The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, MBA September 2003" - Duongld had put this in themselves when creating the article so admitting the violation.
 * The new creation included the same block of text but also includes a small amount extra that was not a violation (that I know about). Therefore I have removed the apparently copyvio text from the article. This leaves a bit of a mess now but the original text does suggest the possibility of notability so cannot speedy delete the whole article now. (Feel free to prod or AFD however if you think it is warranted.) Davewild (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, You have deleted my page title "David Brez Carlisle", it's no longer exist in the wikipedia, let me explain you from the begining when I started to write the page. I have known Dr. Carlisle more than 20 years, his contributions to science not just for Canada where he was a citizen of but aslo for the world. While searching the www I couldn't find much information about him, after talking to his wife Dr. Roxane Carslisle, I have decided to write something about this great scientist. Becasue I have never made any contributon to Wikipedia therefore didn't know much about wikipedia regulations, I wrote the firts page with some information from different sources which I found while searching the internet. Unfortunately, Wikipedia admininstrations deleted the page even though I have asked for the page to be excluded. At the Wikipedia deleted most of the writing left small part at th end, then later Wikipedia completely removed entire page. I did write the page with infos that I have collected in the internet, the writing was mine. I hope that Wikipedia will reconsider and restore my page back. Yours truly; Duongld —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I'm afraid I can't restore this article as firstly much of the article text appears to be copied from an offline source as you stated when you first created the page at David B Carlisle - "From Eve and Alan Southward The Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, MBA September 2003" and the article did read as it had been copied. Wikipedia has to be very careful not to allow copyright violations so we cannot give the benefit of the doubt in such circumstances.
 * Secondly I did not delete the last version of the page at David Brez Carlisle, this was done by Jimfbleak. Pages on wikipedia need to meet the relevant notability guideline, in this case Notability (people) by showing significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject of the article. Pages must do this on creation or they are liable to be quickly deleted. I can strongly recommend carefully reading Your first article which explains what you need to do to keep a page you create from being deleted.
 * If you think that an article can be written on this subject then you can do so again, but it must be all written in your own words - do not just recreate the article with that same wording again, and it must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. Alternatively if you still feel the decision to delete was incorrect you can take it to Deletion review. Davewild (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Heavy Filth entry
Hi, I wrote the Heavy Filth page because I saw that the band was on the List of all-female bands and I assumed that it was okay to make an entry for them (since most of the other bands had pages, independently of whether they were super-famous or local). This band is starting to grow now, but they are already relatively well known in the Toronto queer community, and I have the impression that they kind of belong to the Toronto alternative cultural scene. I've seen them play in the Inside Out Film and Video Festival, in Toronto Pride 2010, several times in the Gladstone Hotel (Toronto), and at the shooting of the Bruce McDonald movie "Trigger" (2010). I checked it out and their music is going to be featured in the film with other Canadian bands that are in wikipedia like The Ghost Is Dancing or Lioness (band). I started the stub because I am sure that there are more things to add, and I was planning to add them whenever I found out. But maybe it is out of place? (This is a copy of the message I left on the talk page of Heavy Filth, but I thought that it might be easier to connect this way). Thank you for your help! --Rundaseinrun (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The advice given by Are You The Cow Of Pain? on the talk page of the article is a good start. In particular I would suggest reviewing the Notability guideline for bands. Wikipedia requires articles to meet the relevant notability guideline at the time when the article is created, otherwise they are highly likely to be deleted. (However this does not stop it from being recreated once the guideline can be met)
 * If you would like me to userfy the article to your userspace as suggested on the article talk page (e.g. to User:Rundaseinrun/Heavy Filth) then I would be happy to do so. This would give you time to work on it to establish the notability of the article. Otherwise you can contest the proposed deletion by removing the template from the article, but be aware that if you do this it is highly likely that it will be taken to Articles for deletion and consensus there is likely to be for deletion.
 * I hope this explanation is of some help. Davewild (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Stevie Hoang
I saw you listed the Stevie Hoang article for deletion in April 2008; the thing is, it's been recreated. Can you bring it to AfD again? I tried but it's complicated and the links wouldn't show up (ex. when I tried to make a deletion page, etc). Thanks. ★ Dasani ★ 16:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I dodn't list the page for deletion back in 2008, I closed the discussion and implemented the deletion. I would be very reluctant to list this article again at AFD as I think it meets the first criterion of the music notability guideline. The article already inlcudes significant coverage from The Times and Birmingham Mail and after a quick search I found more coverage in the Daily Star, The Guardian and the Braintree and Witham Times. Given this coverage, which is a massive improvement from the 2008 version which had no coverage from reliable sources at all, I think any AFD could only end up as a keep.
 * However if you still feel the article should be deleted then I am prepared to create the AFD for you, but must advise that I would argue for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

British Columbia Medical Journal
Hi there, could you please correct the change you made to the name of the British Columbia Medical Journal? "BC Medical Journal" is an abbreviated title used for design purposes on the cover of the print publication; the actual copyright title is British Columbia Medical Journal. I'm new to Wikipedia and I can't figure out how to change the title back and fix the redirects. Thanks! T. Tarakathleen (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Have moved the page back and commented on the article talk page. Davewild (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Black veil brides band page
I'm confused why you deleted the Black veil brides wiki page, "Article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)" <was your reason, their debut album just sold 11,000 copies in its first week and debuted at 35... as you can see their a big deal there are bands that haven't even released an ep yet that have pages... here are some sources: http://www.metalinsider.net/metal-by-numbers/metal-by-numbers-728-here-come-the-brides http://kikaxemusic.com/news/punkemoindie/1406-black-veil-brides-crack-billboard-top-40

please do your homework before you delete something you know nothing about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.234.45 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article when I deleted it back on the 11 July just stated that they were a band, who was in the band and had a link to a myspace page. It is up to the creator of the page to show why the subject of the article meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, if this is not done the page will be deleted. I also note that these two links you provide are from well after the page was deleted - notability must be established before the page is created not the other way round.
 * Anyway I note a page is in existence at Article Incubator/Black Veil Brides where you can help edit it to being it up to a standard where it can be moved to the main article space. Davewild (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, for your comments at Articles for deletion/Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant. I researched the subject matter prior to going about writing the article, in an attempt to see if it satisfied relevant policies and guidelines, and only began to write it after seeing it had sufficient WP:RS secondary source coverage to satisfy WP:NOTE. Thanks again! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)