User talk:Fish and karate/Archive 1

Sorry
Sorry, Proto, that was some flip of the hand I shouldn't have done, but I can't see how "living" can be POV. Str1977 11:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

More ssignature testing
Testing my signature, dum di dum dum Proto 15:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * One day I will get this signature fixed again Proto | Talk 14:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Business continuity planning
Please, please wikify this article! I raised it for a peer review and basically got zero response. Constructive 2nd party edits really, really welcome. I rewrote and rewrote and rewrote until my eyes crossed and I've put the article on ice until I can read it with a fresh pair of eyes. Revmachine21 11:50, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Been doing nothing but BCPs in work for two weeks (hence taking a look at the article when I spotted the name), when my brain is working again I will have a go ]] | [[User talk:Name|Talk 13:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Very cool. Which market you in?  Myself, Tokyo.  The BCP article was my in-between, before my new job, project for humanity.  If you come up with any ideas for improvement and you would like to partner up or discuss ideas, let me know.  Revmachine21 01:01, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)  (BTW, you can use four '~' in a row to do an automatic signature.)


 * I work for the National Health Service in the UK - we're having to prepare for ISO 7799 compliance, which necessitates BCPs for all computer systems. Ghastly.  And I know how the signatures work, but I'd manage to break them somehow.  I think it's fixed ... Proto | Talk 11:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting, I've done the same BS7799/ISO17799 but for financial firms in Tokyo. I heard the NHS is the largest employer in the world.  True?  If so, would imagine your BCP work is hellish enough to earn a place in Dante's purgatory. Good luck.  Revmachine21 10:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I think it's supposedly the 3rd (behind the Chinese Army and the Indian Railway company) or the 4th (also behind Wal-Mart) depending on how you count it. But on the plus side, I'm not exactly doing it on my own, just my little piece of the puzzle.  Grargh.  I'm busy creating articles about shoe polish instead, that's what BCPing has driven me to. Proto 10:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Looky what I found today, not sure if this might help you. Added this to the BCP wiki page.

Thanks for pointing that other article my way. I hate merging documents... nightmare. How's your BCP going? I've been working on the limnic eruption and Bozeman, Montana articles. I've also been procrasting like mad on the disaster page. Revmachine21 12:05, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Single digit numbers

 * That's how it always used to be; see Manual of Style (dates and numbers). User:Sj moved these nine articles this morning without getting a consensus. So I moved them back. The right place to discuss this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Gdr 14:30, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC) P.S. See for example Special:Whatlinkshere/2.


 * Hi Proto,
 * Please read and comment on my years and dates proposal, affecting years that are also numerals. +sj +  20:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The NCdave Saga
Hey Proto:

Thanks for the heads up on NCdave.

I tuned out for awhile... Is he returning after being sent away administratively for awhile? Was he suspended? Did he leave in self-imposed exile? What happened?

--AStanhope 19:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Manchester United/History of Manchester United
Hi,

I noticed you'd been working on Man United-related pages and could do with your opinion on something.

The history section was split out of the page last year (I think) but someone then wrote another history section in the main page. Both pages are now well over the recommended maximum size for a Wikipedia article, and it's getting to the stage where I suspect people are editing them without reading them all the way through (which would explain why the Glazer takeover is mentioned twice in Manchester United, in roughly the same amount of detail each time.

So, my idea is to create new pages for different eras in United's history, merge the relevant bits of Alex Ferguson, History of Manchester United and the History section of Manchester United into each new page and put summaries of each new page on Manchester United, with comments asking people not to make the summaries too long. The new articles would have titles like:


 * Manchester United pre-1945
 * Manchester United 1945-1968
 * Manchester United 1968-1986
 * Manchester United 1986-present

I think something like this is necessary to keep the pages manageable, but obviously don't want to make such big changes to other people's work without hearing what people think first. Please let me know what you think, at the Manchester United talk page.

Thanks, Cantthinkofagoodname 11:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Marla Ruzicka
Yes - she was definitely hot. --AStanhope 19:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Name Format.
Yes, I agree it is a minor quibble, however, seeing you're from the UK I also see why. After all, we are two great nations separated by a common language.


 * how about we go with the version we discussed on the talk page? ("Terri Schiavo, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo")?

I find that equally ugly, and as I said before, commonly known as just sets my teeth on edge. It's like she was doing business as (DBA).

I have a better idea. I'll write a proposal on the subect (hopefully neutral) on the talk page and let's see if we can get a consensus. I'll go along with whatever the group says, unless they select commonly known as which I won't even offer as an option. Duckecho 16:13, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Your argument for deletion
quote: Proto: Tony's version is The limitation of the right to self-determination of women is one of the core issues of the philosophy of law I guess you got a little confused during your research.--Fenice 16:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * ... amendments made by Tony Sidaway, 214.13.whatever it is, and others ... - not just Tony's version. Proto 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And also Proto, if you have serious doubts if clashes between civil liberties and criminal law could be a core issue of philosophy of law see here (http://www.unbf.ca/arts/Phil/).--Fenice 16:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not having doubts about that. My only point is that the above sentence is not at all relevant, and is best left out. Proto 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And also Proto, since you're having serious doubts about whether abortion could just be a problem of the Philosophy of Law see here (http://reg.ucsc.edu/soc/aci/spring1999/phil.html).--Fenice 16:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Those are not my doubts, again, my only doubt is that one sentence. Proto 08:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In your first sentence, you acknowledge my argument. But confronted with your misreading you still don't feel you should give a reason for deleting Philosphy of law. Still, I assumed you would and have already given you the counterargument beforehand in my next line - which you strangely enough acknowledge as true, you find that convincing too. - But you think philosophy of law is not abortion-relevant. ok sofar. Preempting your course of 'argumentation' or thinking, I then have given you the link to prove it is abortion-relevant. Which again, strangely enough you find convincing and do not doubt. And then your statement still ends in that your doubt is in the sentence.....? (sentence is: Limitations etc... are a core issue of the Philosphy of law).....huh? Is there a comprehension problem? Which is it?

Do not answer on my page, answer here, I put your page on my watchlist. Also, I do not care if this is included in abortion any more, that is not the point. I just wonder what on earth you were thinking...?--Fenice 08:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and of course I don't have abortion on my watchlist any more, so I would not find your answer there.--Fenice 09:05, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is indeed a 'comprehension problem', in that your argument is becoming incomprehensible, but I will repeat myself again. I think you're misunderstanding the point here.  Yes, abortion is relevant to the philosophy of law, as your excellent cites prove, well done.  The issue is that a sentence that reads The limitation of the right to self-determination of women is one of the core issues of the philosophy of law - why is that relevant in an article on abortion?  It's been shoe-horned in purely to get a link to the philosophy of law article; it's added fluff that doesn't need to be there.

Also, out of curiosity, could I ask why you don't use your own talk page? Proto 10:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume this means, you believe that the sentence is supposed to forcefully insert a link to the article on philosophy of law - why would anyone want a link to that article?
 * your argument is becoming incomprehensible
 * then you should have said so and asked back. Don't you think that adding: I do not doubt that conveys the impression that you can also comprehend what you say you do not doubt?
 * I assume the comprehension-problem is in one of the sentences explaining the two links then?
 * The issue is that a sentence that reads The limitation of the right to self-determination of women is one of the core issues of the philosophy of law - why is that relevant in an article on abortion?
 * It is about as basic to an article on abortion as the statement that pro-lifers think the embryo is a living human being. How else would you define 'abortion law', other than with some sentence that includes the right to self-determination is limited? If you wanted to strike the additional information that it is a core problem of the philosophy of law, I wonder why you didn't do that and instead resorted to commentless deleting of the whole sentence? In line with the style of the article - ethics and morality is mentioned throughout - mention of the philosophy of law it's more than justified. --Fenice 11:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * To sum up, as I understand it, you do understand that the sentence is correct, but you think ethical aspects are irrelevant in the law-section. Then I wonder - why did you not delete the other ethical aspects mentioned in the same section (or the entire article, if that's your reasoning)?--Fenice 11:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that sentence is irrelevant. I don't know how many times you would like me to repeat that.  Mentioning of the 'philosophy of law' is unnecessary, and so I removed the sentence (particularly as it was causing such problems with being linked to constitutional rights).  Shall I repeat it again?  The sentence is unnecessary. Would you like me to put it in bigger letters? Proto 12:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary as in all of wikipedia is unnecessary? Come on. But nice to see that you really just don't have arguments for the deletion. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.--Fenice 12:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, yes, that's exactly what I meant. Well done. Proto 12:36, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Just for the future, to avoid the unnecessary hum-drum: simply put "I am deleting this even though I have no reason". That'll make it clear from the beginning and make live easier for Wikipedians.--Fenice 12:40, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * sigh* ... I give up. It's like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling.  Proto 12:45, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Use plastic foil. There's always a way to express yourself. ... But apart from that ... you also seem to wanna delete the word constitutional a lot... it is still in there several more times. You know, you might just wanna...yummy...delete some more. The cat's away, go play. (Sorry, but what you are doing is also funny in a way.)--Fenice 12:54, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I deleted one sentence. One.  Don't you have anything better to do?  Shoo. Proto 13:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, its not just any sentence, its an important one and it included the definition of abortion law.--Fenice 14:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And of course, apart from that, I just couldn't believe anyone would seriously join the IP in bullying me. At the village pump people were speculating, someone would probably even side with me. Your attitude was hard to believe, for me, and I have just never met anybody on wikipedia who would so openly admit to be just disruptive.--Fenice 14:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Whoa whoa whoa ... 'bullying'? Please explain this claim.  You're the one who has been repeatedly posting messages on my talk page (you even refuse to use your own) over and over regarding the deletion of one short sentence.  Now, this doesn't bother me, but I really fail to see how deleting one sentence and attempting to explain my reasons for this civilly constituted bullying. That's an unfair accusation, and Fenice, I'd like you to apologise, please, and we'll leave it at that.

I won't even take up the other lie about me being openly disruptive and admitting it, neither of which are true. I'm posting this on your own talk page as well. Feel free to delete it, then I know you've read it. Proto 09:18, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do not think philosophy is relevant here because.... I do not think a definition of abortion law is relevant because... and not: I do not think philosophy is relevant here because its irrelevant. I do not think a definition of abortion law is relevant because its irrelevant. I understand you find that funny. But I don't - I'm shocked. Would I be trying to understand your motives if I'd agree its funny? So your joke to me is the same as admitting you are disruptive, in case you wonder about the reasoning.--Fenice 09:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * If you delete a sentence you are supposed to give a reason for it. It was not just any sentence it was the definition of the section heading. By giving a reason it is meant that you are supposed to be able to produce a statement like:

Also, to me it was only important to understand your motives. I don't intend to work any further on this article, so don't bother to make up or find arguments now. This was only to make sure you really don't have arguments and don't plan to give any and were just deleting to heat up a conflict.--Fenice 09:32, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Fenice, please think before you type. I had a reason - the sentence was irrelevant and was causing conflict - there is no need to quantify that, surely?


 * Proto, please think before you type. It was the removal of the sentence that was causing the conflict. If you think something is irrelevant you should be able to argue that.--Fenice 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't have arguments because - unlike yourself - I don't want to argue with people. I didn't heat up any conflict, you did that perfectly well on your own.


 * Ha ha very funny. A pun. (you do understand the difference between argue and argue - or is it your turn to plead on stupidity?) Again: I know you are just thinking it's funny. The point here though is editing, not disrupting, even if you think its funny. Look back at the scene: you see two people arguing, one of them a know problem user on this page. Nobody in their right mind (and being serious and not disruptive) would step in, make a deletion, not be able to argue it and accuse everybody in the room. I don't know how old you are but go play someplace else.--Fenice 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am unhappy at your describing me as a bully, when I am anything but (and I guess I'll be waiting for an apology for a long time on that count), and would appreciate you taking some time to see this from my point of view - I deleted one sentence because - in my opinion - it was unnecessary, and as a result you have harangued and insulted me repeatedly. Proto 09:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * would appreciate you taking some time to see this from my point of view
 * as I explained above, the only reason I was asking you was to understand your motives. --Fenice 10:09, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My motive was 'I think that sentence is irrelevant, and so I shall remove it, in an attempt to make the article read better'. Your failure to grasp such a simple thought process says more about you than I ever could.  Fenice, unless you have something pertinent and constructive to say, please stop pestering me via my talk page. Proto 10:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * So you're pleading on simplicity then. Again: I have understood your motives and I think it's very sad. That's really all there is to say.--Fenice 11:04, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Good, you have made your point, such as it is. Please stop posting on my talk page now. Proto 11:06, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Count to Ten both of you -this is not good for you.... A curate's egg 19:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Handmaiden
Hey, nice job on making this article an acceptable stub. Soundguy99 15:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Manchester United pre-1945
Hi Proto, thanks for the feedback. Sorry for the slow reply, been on a wiki-holiday. I should be able to carry on with it over the weekend. CTOAGN 18:15, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Schools & Stupid/Bad Article Ideas
It's not so much that I know more, it's that I'm taking a principled stand here: High Schools are, sans more, Non-Notable. If you seriously think that they're going to be included regardless, you possibly could remove them WP:BAI, but please, leave the school item in WP:Stupid, which is partly a place for "deletionists" to vent about bad article ideas they see a lot (of which high schools are an excelent example). Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 11:50, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Images
Hi Proto

You said you might look into images for the United articles. I was just wondering how you go about finding football images that don't have copyright problems as I'd like to add one to Denis Law's page. If you've found some before, could you let me know how to go about it please.

I've done the merge/split on United's history - there's some stuff about it on the Manchester United talk page. If you could give me some more feedback that'd be great.

Cheers, CTOAGN 22:55, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nickname
Just went through this - FYI there have been female Laurie's, both real and fictional, (e.g. in The Partridge Family and Molly Dolly and Good Golly Miss Molly are both used (one gets _very_ tired of things such as "Good Golly Miss Molly, what's the homework?"!). M

You may want to rewrite this
Your comment on Terri Schiavo regarding "expert"s (in "life prolonging procedures") may need to be rewritten. Patsw misstated his premise and you posted from that premise. In fact, I'm sure you meant the opposite of what you said, and may want to rewrite it. Duckecho 15:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

More TS
NCdave doesn't even recognize sarcasm when he reads it. Duckecho 10:28, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Manchester United pages
Thanks for that. It's good to know someone liked it as I've not had much feedback since I did it. CTOAGN 17:59, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stubbing What's Inside Heidi's Head?
My pleasure, nice to know it's appreciated. I find re-stubbing/wikifying/copy editing articles a lot easier than writing them from scratch, horses for courses and all that :) Davelong 28 June 2005 14:08 (UTC)

Category:UK Wikipedians
Hi, just to let you know that the list of UK participants at the UK notice board was getting rather long, so I have replaced it with the above category which I have added to your user page. -- Francs2000 | Talk 30 June 2005 20:41 (UTC)

Pang uk
Sorry to bother you, but I do hope that you could kindly rethink your merger vote. Another kind of stilt house, the Papua New Guinea stilt house, is added. I've stated some other reasons supporting to keep the artice in this page as well. Thank you for your attention. :-) -- Jerry Crimson Mann 2 July 2005 18:50 (UTC)
 * I'll keep my promise. :-D -- Jerry Crimson Mann 4 July 2005 13:50 (UTC)

Piano Man
Hello Proto,

I'm interested in talking to you about the piano man. Is there a way of contacting you? Thanks.

Lucas julist87@gmail.com


 * Yes. You can say it on this page, or, click 'email this user' at the bottom left of the screen when viewing my user page or this page. Proto t c 5 July 2005 08:35 (UTC)

Welcome
Frankie says: \//_ C ._) | _| - | |

"Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you like it here. Better late than never"

boffy_b 12:25, July 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the lovely welcome. Or thank Frankie.  I wub yew. Proto t c 14:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Anything for a public-sector polylingual unorthodox AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD-type awesome-lovin' lady-cat.boffy_b 14:48, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The removed "rude message"
Believe me mate, I could have been a lot more rude about your deletion if I'd let myself have free rein. I suspect your removal of my comment here is more down to your embarrassment than any "rudeness". If it wasn't, it should have been. In removing the comment, you also removed the relevant links it contained (which I wonder whether you even bothered to look at). Anyhow, it's your talk page and if you want to cover your tracks like that, there's nothing to stop you. It's in the page history should anyone care to look. I suggest you think more carefully about what you delete in future and back up any such action with decent reasons in the edit summary. You are not the only user (and I might add, you are not the only British user). posted by User:195.157.197.108 on July 12 at 11.49 UTC - Proto


 * Nothing to do with embarrassment ... more to do with you being rude. And that the little black ribbon looks gay.  I did look at the links, the black ribbon one anyway (if you check, I actually edited the article it links to after looking at it).  Wikipedia is not a memorial, so instead of pestering me, bugger off to the talk page and see what people think about your mincey black ribbon there.  Also, unsigned messages on user pages aren't particularly helpful. Why not join wikipedia (and sign your name, even if you're an unregistered user, with four tildes, like this:  ~  ) Proto t c 12:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh dear.


 * Your link takes me to a page of a list of things Wikipedia is not. The word "memorial" is used once, under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  It's not relevant to the inclusion of a very small icon "in memory" but relates to personal memorial entries.  I'd invite you to read the page again with more care, particularly this section.  While you're at it, you might like to look at this page and consider toning down the homophobic language.  Then again, you may not actually care how you come across here.  It certainly seems that way.


 * I don't sign comments because I don't feel the need to plaster my IP over Wikipedia pages. I don't have an account because I don't feel the need to advertise myself (Wikipedia is not a memorial remember?).  I am just a Wikipedian, quietly getting on with things.  That doesn't need justifying.  posted by User:195.157.197.108 on July 12 at 14.52 UTC - Proto


 * Then, Mr Wikipedian, why did you take the time to be rude to me on my user page, just for removing a little black ribbon? Someone else will no doubt remove it, so I won't again.  Go and quietly get on with things instead of bothering me.  Perhaps you should read the overarching disclaimer at the bottom of every edit page - If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it.  If I choose to remove an image from an article, I may do so.  If you choose to put it back, you may do so.  No skin off my nose.  But don't then be rude to me on my user page about it.  Be civil, or better yet, just don't bother me at all.  If I've been rude to you in return, mate, then it's your own stupid fault.  And if I want to call a little black ribbon gay on my own user page, I will.  Ooooh, the awful homophobia.  People are far too sensitive nowadays.  Shoo.  Proto t c 13:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Proto: I have filed a wikiquette breach report.  It's a shame we can't all just get along.


 * For the benefit of anyone reviewing this discussion, this was my initial "rude" posting:


 * "I am replacing the black ribbon image you removed from the London Bombings page. It is a small, unobtrusive mark of respect. I note you gave no reason for removing it. Looking up your talk page, that doesn't seem to be a new thing for you." posted by User:195.157.197.108 on July 12 at 15.08 UTC - Proto


 * Fine by me, User:195.157.197.108. I've done nothing wrong.  All you've done is come on and rile me up, with your sly little insinuations about 'this doesn't seem to be a new thing for you', when I've never deleted without reason.  As you didn't feel the need to bother to provide thew link to the user you're issuing a complaint about (which is appalling wikiquette in itself), here's the link for this wikiquette report: Wikiquette_alerts Proto t c 14:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Shiavo, of course
''maybe you could try and get your message across without all capitals and without swear words (or calling SlimVirgin a jerk and an asshole etc etc). Keeping it civil will give you a slightly better chance of getting your message across.''


 * I thought saying "f**%!ng" was at least a slight improvement over having all the letters. maybe not. FuelWagon 14:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Still gets the meaning across.


 * Proto: Having looked at the history of the Terri Schiavo article, I now see how you comment your deletions when you do give a reason: "removed - stupid fratboy neoligism POV bullshit".  Not exactly designed to keep things calm is it? 195.157.197.108 14:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, my point proved entirely. Fuelwagon's case was dealing with an administrator who had been annoying but civil.  So calming down was in order.  Did you read the section I removed that the above edit comment is associated with? It was stupid, it was a fratboy joke, it was full of neoligism, and it was bullshit.  All cogent and applicable terms.  Thanks for signing your contribution this time, btw.  Have you finished now? Proto t c 19:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin
I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work
 Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work '


 * Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Cooling effect of oil
Thanks for your inputs at WP:RD. The discussion there has resulted in the creation of two new articles Culture-specific syndrome and Suudu. You can improve upon these. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 05:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Efed
According to the deletion log:  User:Hedley deleted "Efed" reason given: (Deleting as a clearly better, more NPOV article exists already at e-wrestling)

If you disagree you can always try WP:VfU. Hope that helps --Doc (?) 09:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. Btw I'm not an admin, the info on deletions is available to all users on Special:Log/delete. So next time an article disapperates you'll know what to do. Cheers, --Doc (?) 09:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dark Eden
Before marking articles for speedy deletion, please read Criteria for speedy deletion. --Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 15:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Efed
Hey,

I undeleted all 15 edits for you. Check out for the last edit before it was deleted. Sorry for any problems, although I'm sure you'll agree that e-wrestling was in a better state at the time (and was less POV, although the article's crap if you ask me, I just watchlist it).

By the way, do you have a connection to eW, or were you just looking up the article's reasons for deletion? Hedley 21:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

When redirecting...
Can I suggest that you put an edit summary? Otherwise it looks just like a blanking :-) Dan100 (Talk) 15:35, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this diff :-) Dan100 (Talk) 15:54, August 8, 2005 (UTC)