User talk:Desertsky85451

Ordyg 17:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)13:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)OrdygWelcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Slgr @ ndson (page - messages - contribs) 21:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Automobile self starter
As I've seen you're the last user that edited the "automobile self starter" article, i wish to point out that that article has references to a non-existing image. Have you got a image that is capable to replace the one that is missing or should those references be removed?

Fansites.
If pointing out that there is no justifiable reason to remove what are useful links for people interested in Jake Gyllenhaal or meeting likeminded people makes me a creepy stalker, if patiently going through Wikipedian policy and obeying it faithfully makes me a creepy stalker, if reverting the edits of someone who will not use edit summaries nor justify their edits nor even talk about it on the talkpage makes me a creepy stalker, then I guess I fit that judgement; but so does EVERY editor that adds the main informational links on any biographical article. Dev920 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Diddums, adding relevant information to a bio article also includes adding relevant external links, it's called *gasp* Wikipedia policy. You do your job, I'll do mine. Dev920 20:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wibblekins, if you think IHJ consists of juicy gossip, you need to *look* at the links rather than deleting them because your poor little brain can't cope with the idea that people can be interested in Jake without wanting to stalk. But you know what? It's ok, dear, you believe what you like. I'm not going to judge someone who accuses me of stalking for following Wikipedia Policy - everyone else will do that for me. Dev920 09:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear desertsky, I am now writing seriously. I do not know who you are, or who you think I am, but we are both Wikipedian editors. We edit articles to conform to Wikipedia Policy. Now Wikipedia policy, as cited in WP:EL, is to include links to sites that provide further information, and to the main fansites if the article is a bio of a celebrity. I have not tried to add every fansite under the sun, I have kept the single largest fansite from which every other Jake site takes their information. I do not know why you persistently refuse to engage with me or steven on this rather than to repeatedly remove it and throw insults (and stevenscollege is scottish, btw) when things don't go your way, but it is tiring and as I have Wikipolicy on my side, you will lose. If you want to be a deletionist fine, but there is a difference between deleting the unneccessary and deleting what is not only acceptable, but required under Wikipedian policy. I will ask you once to refrain from abusing both stevenscollege and I in this way and to stop removing fansites, not just from Jake's age, but from everyone else's that you have deleted or I will report you to an admin, because your behaviour has crossed the line from acceptable banter to frustration at losing. Please stop. Thnakyou. Dev920 15:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway to report Desertsky85451 for not following Wikipedia's policy regarding external links? It's not just links in Jake Gyllenhaal that are being removed without cause by this rogue editor. Whether they like them or not, multiple informative resources, including fansites, are acceptable in Wikipedia. Heck, check 'Wikipedia' itself! 24.49.225.44 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I dare you to prove you're right about Wikipedia's policy by removing all the external links from Wikipedia! It's your opportunity to prove how tough you think your really are... 24.49.225.44 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way I can speak to you privately? Ayashe 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hobart
Hi there Desertsky. The relevant guide is at Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). The reason is so that pages don't get clogged up with related, but not necessarily ambiguous, topics. Searching for "Hobart College" will take people to its own page with links to both the Tasmanian and New York schools. -- Chuq 06:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve Jurvetson
I find Jurvetson neither "amazing" or "brilliant". I was simply saying that I disagree with the idea that he is "not well-known in any way, shape or form". There is no need to be snarky. My point was, within the realm of business, he is rather well known. And it was 53 pages - not 53 single people. ExRat 00:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. I understand what you are saying, but still disagree. Jurvetson has not merely been on two-bit magazines. He was recently honored as "The Valley's Sharpest VC" on the cover of Business 2.0 and chosen by the San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner as one of "the ten people expected to have the greatest impact on the Bay Area in the early part of the 21st Century." He was profiled in the USAToday, New York Times Magazine and featured on the cover of Worth Magazine and Fortune Magazines. In the world of business, that is "rather well known". ExRat 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "For now, I grant him the ’honor’ of stereotyped as a BMW-driving yuppie who probably lives in a McMansion." My assessment as well :). I'm certainly not overly fond of him or his ilk. But, I suppose I just guess that an encyclopedia should be all encompassing and only truly non-notables (like write ups for people's deceased grannies) should be excluded. ExRat 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Governor-General of Australia
Please do not call other editors "idiot". It is annapropriate and violates wikipedia policy. Xtra 02:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I came here to write the same thing. --Dlatimer 02:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

More Fansities
What is your obsession with deleting links to fan sites? You're little one man grudge isn't going to get you anything - just a bunch of enemies.
 * oh NO!! enemies on wikipedia? I'm gonna go to my room and CRY!! Desertsky85451 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true you're making enemies, unnecessarily. You really should recheck Wikipedia's policies regarding external links. Multiple, informative resources, including fansites, is completely acceptable. If you don't like them personally, then don't click on them. Others, however, may find them useful -- which is the purpose of adding them. 24.49.225.44 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

George B. McClellan
Nice work cleaning that up. Sorry to dump the changes on someone else, but I really can't claim to know either the subject area or the proper way to discuss a legacy in an NPOV manner. Desertsky85451 17:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. A practice I employ is to avoid using those warning boxes in main articles without raising issues in the Talk pages first. I use such boxes rarely, as a last resort. I'd recommend it to you. Hal Jespersen 21:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

CfD
From the looks of things, I'd bring it to CfD. Nominate it, and be clear that you feel at least one should exist, and request to merge all the names to the more desirable category. The worst that can happen is that no one agrees. SynergeticMaggot 19:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

CfD
Learn what sarcasm is, smart alec. Desertsky85451 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not as smart as you think. Repentence would have been more impressive. Nathan Mercer 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Re:Jolin Tsai
Done. I hope you agree with the new link. enochlau (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with excessive fan links either. I just don't think 1 fansite and 1 photo site is excessive. However, the Yahoo idea is good. enochlau (talk) 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Why are you charging me with vandalism? It is customary to inform people of charges! Giuliani Time 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that you must had edited when I reverted and you got hit by mistake. Allways in these assume good faith ok? Æon Insanity Now! EA!  03:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No prob. I was after the IP idiot I have been chasing for the last 10 mintutes. Nailed him just a second ago. Æon Insanity Now! EA!  03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Abner Louima
Abner Louima? Jesus, there is no truth over the whole mess. You damn liberals hate the police so much you those of us who try and tell the truth vandals. Let me guess, you don't support our troops either? Giuliani Time 03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Joseph E. Schmitz
I just wanted to let you know that I did not vandalize the Joseph E. Schmitz page, it was divided up not per the wikipedia style, so I took those subheadings out, and I also may have taken a few npov words out as well, it was a good edit and I do not appreciate be being seen as vandalism. 63.18.178.129 03:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:Apology
Apology accepted. Go and edit. :D Dev920 06:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ayumi Hamasaki
Why don't you leave it up to people who know who she is to determine whether those links are worthwhile? I understand your hate for external links but those links are useful. enochlau (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of WP:IAR? Sure, guidelines are useful, but not when they stand in the way of good editing. In any case, you're deleting from the wrong category. You've left two fansites, but you're removing links to things that aren't fansites, including links to lyrics etc. enochlau (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * replied on Enochlau's user page Desertsky85451 02:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think where we differ is in our characterisation of what is a "fansite". I've never thought of websites that purely contain photos as fansites - personally, I think linking to them would be useful as they contain a large amount of material that Wikipedia can never host itself due to copyright. I've always thought of fansites as bulletin boards, or just pages of generic info about someone's favourite pop singers. enochlau (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * replied on Enochlau's user page

Iditarod (race) and bureaucratic red tape
Regarding your comment on my talk page, I couldn't really do anything because I'm not an admin. All I can do is watch helplessly at the sidelines (and revert if given the oppurtunity), not "point the way instead of helping." However, I agree with you; Wikipedia is oftentimes a burdened bureaucracy, and I sympathize with your exasperation. --physicq210 03:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's ok. At least now they semi-protected the article, so you can catch a few breaths before protection ends and the IPs come back. --physicq210 18:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello
I can see why you need help. Unfortunatly I'm not a sysop (Well not yet anyways). However I can point you in the rigt direction for help. Go here and post WP:AN/I that would be your best bet inorder to get help quick. I'm really sorry that there is not much more I can do. Æon Insanity Now! EA!  03:55, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Note on AN
In the future you may want to take such requests to WP:RPP which is wear page protection requests should go. JoshuaZ 03:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Eliza Clark (actor)
Thanks for catching that earlier vandalism. I saw it right after I reverted. Irongargoyle 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi
I was about to revert the vandalism on Kent, Washington but you did it first. I checked out the guy's talk page and saw you put a rather strong vandalism template on there. In the future, please use, it is more suitable for vanity and is less newbie-biting. Wooty 22:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

My mistaken edits to template3

 * Sorry I made a mistake. It was not deliberate vandalism. I meant it to give it to an editor who defamed certain people but put it there by mistake. Thanks for pointing it out.Hkelkar 01:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi I think there was a mistake with IP Address 129.44.178.88. There was an allegation made on this individuals talk page that they engaged in character defamation. You deleted it though, does that mean the person who initially made the charge made a mistake??


 * Yes, I corrected it. Another user accidentally added unrelated accusations to the welcome template, and when I used the welcome template, the template the pasted the accusations into their talk page along with the welcome message. I've corrected the welcome template, and I think I've deleted the accusations from everyone's talk page where I used it. Desertsky85451 02:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:AN
Here is a page full of helpful links to pages that require sysops to process: Requests for administrator attention. — xaosflux  Talk  04:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Cheryl Cole
No problem. :) TransUtopian 20:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

KC135s Afghanistan
Your addition of Image:KC135s Afghanistan.jpg to commons is a very nice image. I would like to nominated it in English wikipedia as a featured picture candidate, but before I do, I need a url that you downloaded it from so we can verify that it is truly a free image. Can you please add it to the image text? Thanks. --rogerd 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your URL, but unfortunately, that is a restricted site, the following text is on the site:
 * Access is restricted to active duty U.S. military personnel and U.S. Department of Defense civilians.
 * I am afraid that unless this image is on a public site like http://www.af.mil/photos/, it can't be used in commons or wikipedia. It is a really nice image, so I hope we can find a free version.  Thanks.  --rogerd 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what the hell the link I listed as the source links to, but its really from here or here. I've fixed the source on Commons.  Nominate away for featured picture.  Desertsky85451 20:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will --rogerd 20:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I got busy with other things and just now got around to nominating it. See Featured picture candidates/KC135s Afghanistan  --rogerd 01:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixing Vandalism
How many inbound and/or outbound links does an article need to have the "linkless" tag removed? I'm trying to help some articles that are lacking in that area and have that kind of tag. M2k 01:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks desertsky...My gut was that the # of in/out links for the articles I edited were sufficient - I would like to remove the linkless tags, but I noticed in the history there had been several unsuccessful rounds. I think having companies that fit into a particular category of research are useful and notable. There are many other companies and firms that are a similar type that are included in the categories and with links in/out. I tried to emulate this approach. Thanks for your advice! M2k 02:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Natalia Tena
A reversion war is certainly not the way to go. If you and other editrs are finding yourself up against sockpuppetry used to violate WP:3RR then you can file a sock check request at WP:CHECK. If the problem is that noone can agree with what needs to go in the article, it can be fully protected until it gets settled on the talk page. WP:EL is also not a policy, but one of the often disputed MOS guidelines. Additional dispute resolution remedies can be sought at Resolving disputes. Personally I don't want to get invovled in the merits of this particular dispute, but will put a page protection in place if there is a revert war in progress, let me know if you want that. Note, generally page protections end up on The Wrong Version. — xaosflux  Talk  17:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The only way an extra website can be considered is if it gives much more information on the subject that neither the article or the main link can. Ask them to explain what is on this website that makes it worth adding. If they can't justify it, you are right in repeatedly taking it down, and should take it to ANI(or use this admin above) or apply for mediation at MedCab. But don't lose your cool over an EL. It's a sure path to losing the battle. Dev920 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic Images is not an advert
The page Dynamic Images does indeed refer to a company. In addition, it is an internationally trademarked business name. The wiki page is no more of an advert for a company than the wiki pages for any other multi-million dollar, international company. For example - Abercrombie & Fitch, Nike Inc., Disney, Sears, adidas, Sony, Warner Brothers, GUESS?. The company is the ONLY provider of a Kodak-patented Lenticular print process. Furthermore, they bought an entire division of Kodak, and partner with every one of the companies listed above. This is significant in the world of Lenticular Imaging. Please learn about a topic before choosing to mark something for deletion.

You continue to insist that the Dynamic Images page is an advertisement. Where did you earn your journalism or advertising degree? What do YOU consider an advertisement? Perhaps you work for a competitor of Dynamic Images. That is certainly the impression I have after your repeated attempts to "police" this article..

66.158.35.2
Just letting you know that 66.158.35.2, is the IP address used by Evanston Township High School, and that it is used by all computers there. Reub2000 16:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

the tag says it can be deleted
Amoruso 22:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess you couldn't wait
Try waiting more than three minutes before tagging articles. Otto4711 20:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Avataars: Covenant of the Shield
Hi, I see you've just tagged this for deletion. I've just started work on the page, so it's still a stub at the moment, but will be explanded. The series wasn't Marvel's finest moment - it's certainly not a good comic - but as noted, it did feature almost all of the Marvel Comics 'flagship' characters. I feel it's suitable as part of WikiProject Comics and will also be listing it on the 'new pages' section of the Notice Board. --Mrph 22:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply - I have now removed the tag. Now to see if I can rework the article into something a bit better than the current stub... --Mrph 23:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Football Seasons
Hey dude, how about you consult with the people over at the WikiProject College football before you just start nominating stuff for deletion? The project is well managed and has established standards for single season pages, and they are acceptable. Almost every major Division I-A football team has single season pages. Let a project manage itself before you go making changes, or at least consult with the project members before you go make changes. Seancp 22:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly—there is a whole system in place that you apparently don't know about. You are wasting your time and ours by nominated all of these pages just because you don't think they are important. Do you honestly think that you can get the season pages for every school deleted just because you think they shouldn't exist? There are specific criteria for deletion, and your argument meets none of them.

Notably, the policy states:
 * "The deletion processes all focus on whether an article meets the criteria for existence on Wikipedia; that is, they are to determine whether it is not original research, its central information is verifiable, and it is capable of achieving a neutral point of view with good editorship. XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally." —  Sampo  Torgo  [talk]  [[Image:Flag of Acadia.svg|20px|]] @ 23:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I am wondering if you have had time yet to read any of the articles you are nominating for deletion? For example, did you notice that 2005 Texas Longhorn football team lists 80 independent references, contains multiple free-use images (2 of which have appeared on Wikipedia's main page), quotes relevant US congressional legislation, and is a part of not one, not two, but 3 WikiProjects? Johntex\talk 23:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not nominating these articles because I think they are bad articles, or are poorly referenced, I'm nominating them because its silly to have a unique page for each season of each team for one sport for each school in Division 1. Any easy fix for this would be to merge them into one article for each team, with a different section for each season/year. If you all don't agree, then you're blind to your own bias, and life will go on. DesertSky85451 00:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply on my Talk page. I won't use the phrase "blind to your own bias" because I think it is a bit rude, but perhaps you should examine your own bias before you make claims about anyone else's?  Even if you don't think that college football is important, you may want to consider that perhaps lots of Wikipedia readers do think it is important and would expect us to contain thorough knowledge of the topic. Johntex\talk 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know shit about LSU, or the Longhorns, and I don't care, but I also don't like the deletion of useful information from Wikipedia. I do, however, like a neat and orderly wikipedia, and these articles offend my sense of cleanliness. What is your objection to a merger into one article for each school's football program? DesertSky85451 00:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My objection is very simple. There is simply too much content to merge.  There is more than enough information about a major team's season to fill an entire article.  For eample, 2006 Texas Longhorn football team is already at 55kb.  2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team is 38kb.  2006 Ohio State Buckeyes football team is 41kb long. There is far too much information to merge into one article about the whole season.  Going the other way, and merging all info about each season for a given team into one article would be no better.  There would still be way too much content.
 * I appreciate your desire for a tidy Wikipedia. In fact, I share that desire.  That is why we have a WikiProject to help us standardize infoboxes, schedule tables, ensure conformity to policy, etc. Johntex\talk 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps seaons by decades, like LSU has for 1893-1899 > see here? There has to be a way to make this neater.  DesertSky85451 01:17, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of discussion: There is some merit to the idea of combining years. I think it depends a lot on the team and the time period.


 * We fully recognize at the WikiProject that some teams and some seasons are more notable than others. For example, we have NOT rushed to make season pages for teams like Baylor or Duke or Harvard because those teams don't have that big a following.  Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, these teams do have a huge following and it is very reasonable to think we would have a full article on a recent season for one of those teams, or an old season if it was significant in some way.


 * There may be other teams or older time periods where condensing multiple years into one article makes sense. Perhaps not by decade, since the calendar is a bit arbitrary, but perhaps by coach.  For example, Texas Longhorns under John Macovich might make a good article.


 * In general, though, I think these things find their own level. If someone is interested enough in the 1982 Nebraska Cornhuskers to write a decent article about them, that implies there is likely to be some people interested in reading that content as well. Therefore, my inclination would be to first try to help them improve the content and standardize the content with templates/infoboxes/format standards.  I think that is the best way to keep it tidy.


 * Again, I want to emphasize that we are not setting out to write an article about each season for each time. We are working on articles that are likely to be of the most interest to the most people within this subject area. Johntex\talk 01:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I understand some of your frustration. Personally, I used to think that a lot of things were non-notable.  Gradually, I came to realize that even though those things weren't notable to me, many of them were notable to other people.  Sometimes a lot of other people.


 * I do undertand your fear of the slippery slope. I have no perfect answer to that.  It is easy to construct arguments like "if we let in every Pokemon character, then why not every signle character on The West Wing or every single broadcast episode of Saturday Night Live or every single politician to ever hold state-wide office in Arizona or every person to hold city-wide office in Tuscon or every single LGBT-rights organization that has ever filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court or every single traffic jam ever to occur in New York City".  Perphas some of those things sound more absurd to you than others, I don't know.  However, perhaps each of those articles, if well-written, would be valuable to some one.  Certainly, if I was doing a paper on the cultural phenomenon of Pokemon, I'd be very hapy that Wikipedia had not deleted all those articles.  If I was an urban planner, I would thank my lucky stars for an accurate write-up of every single traffic jam to ever happen in New York City, if such a thing were somehow possible.


 * The best answer I can give you is to come back to the subject of editorial interest. If a live, human editor wants to spend time writing a decent article on any given subject, I have become very reluctant to suggest that article should be deleted.  I don't apply the same thinking to a bot.  If the 1930 Sports Almanac has just hit the public domain, I don't necessarily support using a bot to copy in all its content.  I don't support taking every phone directory and including a stub on every primary school, day-care, restaurant and dry-clearners that we can find.


 * As to merging some of the articles, in a way that already exists. One of the articles you nominated for deletion was LSU Tigers football, 1893-1899.  I already mentioned that I think combining some seaons for some teams makes some sense.


 * Again, we do have some guidelines about what goes into articles, what articles deserve the most attention, etc. This WikiProject is only a few months old but it already has 27 members.  Our guidelines are still forming.  We do already have a rating scale to help us focus on the most important content first.  We'll get better with time if we are allowed to continue to work on these articles. Johntex\talk 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Officially, an AfD nomination may be withdrawn if it has received no additional votes for deletion other than the nominator. In this case, there has been one other comment for deletion, so I don't think you can officially withdraw it yourself.  However, if you post back a statement saying that you wish to withdraw the nomination, I suspect that an administrator (not me, since I'm already involved) may go ahead and close the nomination early.  At a minimum it would probably lessen the number of people who feel inclined to comment. Thanks very mcuh for your consideration. Johntex\talk 15:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you as well for your willingness to discuss this and for withdrawing the nomination. Tempers flared a bit, but no great harm has been done.  In fact, some good should come of this.  I had not realized how pathetic our articles on the 2005 and 2006 Trojans are.  (Any by "pathetic" I don't mean any criticism of the original authors - they should feel free to jump in and create a sub if that is all they have time/energy for at the moment - but it is pathetic that we have not improved them yet.) I'm already jumping on that problem with 2 feet.  Please be assured that I will do my best to see that our article creation is sensible and up to a decent standard of quality.  Thanks again, Johntex\talk 16:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Football Seasons
You didn't try to "start a dialogue" with anyone before you put up a wholesale listing of articles for deletion, did you? And I'm sorry if anyone posted anything disparaging about one's sexuality—that certainly has nothing to do with the issue and is not indicative of all football fans. I personally listen to NPR, watch the Daily Show, and support LGBT rights, just as you do. It's not very "mature" of you to stereotype a group of people just because of the actions of one person. —  Sampo Torgo  [talk]   @ 16:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK guys, let's cool it. I listen to NPR and I watch Fox News and college football.  Besides indicating some possible schizophrenia on my part, none of that has anything to do with the question.  I will delete that "Joey Hope" comment from the AfD.  Desertsky has a point that some of these articles need work, but at the same time has been willing to withdraw the nomination and let us work on them.  Let's all drop this argument now, OK? Johntex\talk 17:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Speedy
Hi there; you may not know that, although it in my opinion it should be, advert is not a criterion for speedy deletion. May I suggest that you either use reason or, if justifiable, db-spam. Happy wikying.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. You were, of course, quite right to mark it for speedy delete.--Anthony.bradbury 23:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Renshaw in Mitcham
You've prodded this as nonsense. It's not nonsense, and I don't really think that's a helpful term to use in a prod summary, to be honest. It doesn't really outline any issues with the text, what can be done to improve it or anything. To me, alsjekhgiluasfvih is nonsense. Steve block Talk 12:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair play. That said though, you re-added the prod template after it was removed.  Proposed deletion doesn't allow for that. I merged the info, which doesn't mean the information doesn't belong, but that it may be better presented elsewhere. Steve block Talk 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You have read Proposed deletion? It states:
 * "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back, except if the removal was clearly not an objection to deletion (such as blanking the entire article, or removing the tag along with inserting blatant nonsense); however, if the edit is not obviously vandalism, do not restore it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith. If you still believe the article needs to be deleted, list it on Articles for deletion."
 * Yes, Wikipedia can be infuriating, but that's just something you get used to. Eventually. Steve block Talk 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay
Where you went wrong was with step one of the deletion listing process, although I'm not sure how. How did you add the tag? You simply paste onto the page. Somehow you added the phrase NN-designer to the tag, and that created the argument page at Articles for deletion/NN-designer and not Articles for deletion/Adeline André. You don't add a reason to the afd template, you add it to the article for deletion page at step two of the deletion listing process. I@ve fixed it, but do you understand where you went wrong? Steve block Talk 20:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, glad you know what went wrong. Happy editing. Steve block Talk 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing Al Unser Jr.'s Turbo Racing to my attention
I've been working on it a bit in order to make it a passible, well-linked, well-categorized stub. You did a good job of bringing it to the attention of those that have a hobby of saving ill-formatted stubs. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 13:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Day-O
I am willing to write an article on this film in the next 2 weeks,. It would be a shame to delete an Elijah Wood film because few people have access to it. (I am one of a few people who do, but would like to rewatch it before I pick up my pen). Please let me know if that is acceptable edwpat. Thank you.

VCL (Vixen Controlled Library)
I removed the prod, as this article has already survived a full AfD. My only association with this is that I closed the original AfD, so I personally won't get upset if you want to take it to the dancefloor again, but are you willing to risk the wrath of the furry community? ;)  Dei zio  talk 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * God knows, and God knows. The furry God, perhaps...  Dei zio  talk 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Business Continuity Planning
Do you mind greatly if you explain your precise reasons why this article deserves a clean up flag on the article's talk page? Otherwise, I will remove the flag in 2 days. Revmachine21 00:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Rachel Nabors
You flagged this article for prod deletion on grounds of non-notability. I am declining the request, as I am not sure how notable Ms Nabors is. If you wish to proceed, can you please post a request at WP:AfD.--Runcorn 20:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

About haXe programming language
Hi, you suggested the article about haXe programming language should be deleted. What do you think is missing from the article. Especially you mention the reason for your suggestion to be NN-programming language. What does this mean? Could you please explain. HaXe is quite novel programming language and it is defenitely good that Wikipedia at least mentions the programming language, so I really do not support the article to be deleted. I agree that the article needs some work.85.156.141.238 20:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanity
Per this discussion, please stop using the word "vanity" when commenting on articles. Thanks. - Lex 20:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While not technically policy, WP:AFD says "The accusation VANITY should be avoided, and is not in itself a reason for deletion." under the Wikietiquette part. Also, WP:COI suggests calling it a "conflict of interest" instead and says, "Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — this has created serious problems. Remember that such an accusation may be defamatory. As explained below, an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is."


 * Also, this note from Jimmy Wales shows the problem with claiming something is "vanity." Using that terms makes life difficult for the people who work for Wikipedia and who have to answer to anyone who may be upset by that term. - Lex 20:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Paintball marksman
Thank you for your opinion. A piece of friendly advice - cooperative work and less radical edits will be much better accepted. What you did was unilaterally reformat the page's layout, which I personally spent quite a bit of time on - to say nothing of actually writing the article from scratch over this period of time, which you then decided to term unencyclopedic for no observable reason.

Additionally, the phrase 'ugly as hell, and awful self-centered' comes across as malevolent, which is of course quite inappropriate, not to mention rather rude. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 02:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Vanity? I admit, I feel no small amount of surprise at such an accusation. I am far from a vain person. It is true, I am using pictures of myself and my woodsball team in the articles, but that is simply because my team is the only resource that I have for images. Calling it vanity is not only incorrect, but unfriendly as well.

Additionally, you are being quite uncooperative. I fail to see how the page is horribly laid out - there are, quite simply, images that are on the left side. You seem to dislike this, as you automatically changed all the images in both this article and the woodsball article to the right side, with the single exception of the marksman image at the bottom of the woodsball article. As to the variety of pixel widths, I do not see how this is such a crime as you seem to warrant it as. If I remember correctly, the images are all 300, 325 or 350 pixels. Again, they have reasons why they are such sizes. Just because you don't see them immediately, doesn't mean that it deserves to be changed. If they varied greatly, as in, one was a hundred pixels, another was six hundred pixels, then I could understand. As it is, you aren't making much sense.

Finally, accusing me of thinking that the page belongs to me is nothing more than further evidence of your overall attitude of hostile noncooperation. Also, my references to working with the community do not imply timidity, as you seem to believe. If everyone in Wikipedia decided to be bold in the sense that you are being bold, then nothing would ever get done because no one would be working together. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 03:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving on I think would be the best idea, you're right, because this discussion is sounding more like an argument - especially since you're actually calling me patronizing now. As for your opinion that no one will ever read that article, I'm afraid your attempt is foolish and ignorant. Snipers in paintball are of interest to almost all woodsballers (which number about three fourths of the ten-odd million people who play paintball) because of their nature and controversy. Being a longtime woodsballer myself, I would know. So please, try and keep your self-gratification to yourself in the future; I'm sure things will be easier with other people. Come to think about it, looking at your talk page, being more pleasant on the whole would do wonders for your people relations. So I wish you good luck on that, and thanks again for your attempts to improve the articles. ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 13:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Weedsball
Hi, I removed the speedy deletion tag from this article because WP:NFT is not a speedy deletion criterion, and the article is not patent nonsense. Try nominating it on Articles for deletion instead. --Core des at 03:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now I really am surprised, DesertSky. You are trying to delete something with a huge background you apparently know nothing about - and speedy it, at that. Please, do a little research first, okay? ~ Ma  x  i  m  illi, 13:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Please review the Proposed deletion. "If anyone, including the article's creator, removes Template:Prod from an article for any reason, do not put it back" For Barbara Atkin already had prod removed. You need to AfD it. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. No problem. Wasn't sure as sometimes you see people proding the same article 3 times. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I prefer to run through the speedy deletes. Instant results. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

De-PRODing
Your implication here seems to be that I am de-PRODing for the hell of it, which I must say I rather take exception to - I checked many PRODed articles at the time and only de-PRODed a handful of them. I could equally say that you seem to enjoy PRODing articles. The articles I have dePRODed should not, in my opinion, have been PRODed in the first place. Being badly written, not being wikified, or even being unreferenced, isn't a reason for deletion. The article on Alan Douglas clearly states his notability - frontman for a major local news programme seen across Scotland. With a brief Google search, Anita Leslie's notability could have been established. If you don't think they're notable, these articles should be sent to AfD where they can be discussed fully, not deleted after a PROD notice, which few people will see. -- Necrothesp 10:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Check out your userpage. Congratulations.  young  american (yo) 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. I have not always agreed with your opinions (I just voted keep on pocketmail, as a matter of fact), but you are doing a great service to Wikipedia.  young  american  (yo) 16:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Mindelo Infos
The article seems that is not an advertisement. The article needs to be cleaned-up, that's all. Pumpie 00:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1-800-GOT-JUNK? & Brian Scudmore
Hi there. I notice you have added problems to the 1-800 article. I must admit I have also thought this was a advertising piece for some time. It has survived an afd nomination already. I notice also the Brian Scudmore link that looks like a vanity page also linked in to these. I have prod.ed both articles.--Alex 11:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
I just wanted to commend you on your userboxes, which are superb. Hooray for Democrats, gay rights, hating the Yankees, NPR, and The Daily Show! -- Kicking222 19:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your comment on Kicking222's talk page
"I'm reducing the number of articles on this encyclopedia faster than they are being created".

I have to say that this does not appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. In fact, it sounds like an admission of deliberate disruption. In the interests of assuming good faith, I sincerely hope it was only an unfortunate choice of words. Although obvious rubbish needs to be deleted, and I'd be the first to admit that there's plenty of it, WP is primarily about writing articles, not deleting them. -- Necrothesp 21:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Barney's Campfire Sing-Along
I saw that you had prodded the article. Rather than delete outright I've turned it into a redirect to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. If you think that a delete would be better let me know and I will remove it totally. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

UFO Commander Seven
This prod was disputed on the Talk page, but prod not removed. So I've removed the prod. Personally I think this is marginal... I'm a deletionist at heart, and it isn't a good article but I think it should go to AFD. All the best QuiteUnusual 22:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Johanna Wolf
Yes this article is a stub, as anyone can see. By all means add the appropriate stub tag. But don't clutter it up with useless boxes, since no-one can see anything but boxes when they open the article, and so it will never be improved. Box-fetishism at Wikipedia has gone too far and needs to be restrained. Adam 00:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Machine translation - Notability
If you don't like machine translation, fine, you are not alone. But don't keep reverting the article on Uwe Muegge because of that sentiment. As you probably know yourself, this article is categorized, has incoming links, and a quick search on Google clearly establishes the fact that we are talking about a leader in this field. So before reverting back again, please explain exactly what objections you have against this article. Noboday wants another reversion war. Thank you.

Why do you hate Marquis Who's Who so much?
What's wrong with a reference to Marquis Who's Who? As the article states, this publication chronicles "the lives and careers of America's most noteworthy men and women", which is why every public library in the nation carries this book. Which is why it is an honor to be listed in that book, which is why that information belongs in biographical entries. You haven't proposed to delete the Who's Who article, have you?

Notability
Referring to the boxes added to the stub Edward Jervis Jervis, 2nd Viscount St Vincent. I am new to this but I do understand the reason for the boxes on categories and references. What I do not understand is the query on notability. I did not create this subject; it was already there as a result of a link from another page. I picked it up as needing an article. Can you please explain to me how a Viscount in the Peerage of England can fail a notability test ?Ordyg 13:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. All the 'Viscounts St Vincent' are listed under that heading as are a great number of other Viscounts in the general category Viscountcies.. Probably a large number of them ' didnt do anything'. Are you going to tag them all? And what about Earls, Barons etc etc ? Have you really got a point here or only a POV ? On reflection would you agree to remove your tag please?Ordyg 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/ABS-CBN Stars
An article you prodded, ABS-CBN Stars, has been removed from the prod list. I listed it for AFD. If you'd still want to delete it, you can voice your opinion on the deletion page given above. Thanks. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sec. Gen. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer & SACEUR Gen. Jones.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sec. Gen. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer & SACEUR Gen. Jones.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. -- Chowbok  ☠  02:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong, but I believe there are people already in Belgium, so that might possibly save us both a trip. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  17:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

User Talk question?
Not sure if this is the right place to ask, checking out Wikipedia I noticed a "new message" button and a message that read, "unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning," and so on, with your name signed to the message. Can I ask what this is concerning? I rarely edit, and when I do I make comments, or I'll just make comments and leave the editing to others with more time and resources. - Kevingarcia 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD Notification on College Tonight
Hi there. In an earlier AfD vote on the article College Tonight you voted Delete. This is a notification that due to procedural issues, the article is up for deletion again. Note, this is not a request to vote Delete again (though I'd personally prefer to see it gone!), just a notification that a re-vote is taking place. Thanks! --Arvedui 05:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Caligare restored
This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Articles for deletion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok RfC
I have begun RfC procedures for User:Chowbok. Since you've had previous disputes with him about image uploads, maybe you'd like to add your commentary? TheQuandry 03:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Enjoy this!


has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message. You know I have a friend in Arizona maybe you've met him!Trampton 09:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New article on Steve Omohundro
I found some new information on Steve Omohundro that was not brough up in the original AFD discussion - 17 publications and a US patent - and thought this significant enough to warrant restoring the article. After restoring it, I made enough edits that I feel it's a new article rather than a restoration (it would have been easier to start from scratch than to restore), so I have removed the CFD tag. However, I wanted to invite you to take a look at the article as you participated in the original AFD discussion. --Zippy 00:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

IBOPE
It is the largest public opinion research company in Brazil, with offices in 16 countries, 2,800 employees and a 65-year history, its name is synonym for "TV ratings" - that is not notable???. Macgreco 19:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Caligare
An article that you have been involved in editing, Caligare, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.

This is an article you tried to delete once before via PROD. -- A. B. (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Blast door minot AFB, ND.JPG
A tag has been placed on Image:Blast door minot AFB, ND.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 10:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:CH-146 Griffon.jpg
File:CH-146 Griffon.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:National Guard CH-146 Griffon Patriot 2006 exercises.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Pre Commissioning Unit Makin Island.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pre Commissioning Unit Makin Island.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Hilldale Shopping Center for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hilldale Shopping Center is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hilldale Shopping Center until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)