User talk:Giftiger wunsch/Archives/GA1

Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: TheoreticalBullshit
Hello Giftiger wunsch. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of TheoreticalBullshit, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly an attack page or negative BLP. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank You--Adam in MO Talk 09:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Giftiger, I see you had already worked this out - you withdrew the speedy at the same moment I clicked the "decline" button. So more credit to you than me - I had already deleted this once! JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hi,

Just to let you know that I've wrapped the URL in the xkcd box in plainlink now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware there was a template for plainlinks, but good move. Looks much neater with plainlinks.
 * In answer to the question you left just now but removed (I had already answered it so may as well post it anyway), I generally don't subst userboxes, I only subst ones which I want to make a minor edit to which I don't have the right / justification for making to the template itself. Substing them makes a big mess so I tend to avoid that.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, okay. I just invite myself in and change the original, usually. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In this case I was particularly cautious about doing so as the page is in another user's space. While strictly everything posted anywhere on wikipedia is released into the public domain, people may still be bothered by uninvited edits to their own user space. Also, pages in a user's space are prone to deletion so substing prevents my user page breaking.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * All very true, but I've always taken the attitude that userspace is like someone's lab bench rather than their house; if I can help someone out I'll just go and do it, and the worst that can happen is that it gets reverted. But maybe that's just me. :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * True, it's generally not a problem to improve work in someone's userspace as long as you leave them a note about it on their talk page (good to extend that courtesy, at least).  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  22:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Vormetric and COI
This is true, I do work for Vormetric. I am a sr. product marketing manager. I do really appreciate your edits and apologize for making it sound like an advertisement. That definitely wasn't my intention.Troykitch (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Username suggest it is being written by the chief marketing officer of the company. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 15:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The creator has the username Troykitch, I did a quick search on the page for that name but couldn't find it mentioned. Could you clarify? Since I only took a cursory glance at the edit history and the page before removing the coi I'll trust your judgement here but I'm interested how you reached that conclusion, anyway.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Try this search; first link. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 15:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, cunning; I didn't try googling. Fair enough, the COI is valid.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  15:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left on TroyKitch's user page to advise him about the policy for conflicts of interest.   Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  15:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Aluminum alloys
Just a quick note regarding notability: if you consult the scholarly literature, perhaps searching under, for example, "7039 aluminum" (as it's known in the U.S. and Canada) rather than "7039 aluminium" (the IUPAC-approved form of the element name, a Britishism), you'll find many papers dealing with these alloys. Similarly, engineering/materials science reference books will also describe these. (Google Scholar and Google Books ought to be helpful.)

I'd recommend that you consider whether those notability tags are fully justified after having a quick look there. Those tags are mostly harmless, so I'll let you come to your own conclusions about them. TheFeds 08:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not challenging the notability per se since I haven't yet researched them to find out how notable they really are, just pointing out that the articles don't demonstrate notability themselves. Also, an article for each specific alloy seems excessive; it makes more sense to me to make these articles redirects to aluminum alloy, and if necessary adding extra information to that article. However, I guess it all depends how important these specific alloys really are and how much can be written about them.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  08:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Interface Article
Sorry for the confrontation on the SMD article.

Please take a look at Draft - Interface (computer science) - The current version of Interface (computer science) is all about software interfaces, so I rewrote it to add hardware interfaces, leaving software interfaces alone and linking to user interfaces. It isn't pretty but I think it is better.

I also think the Interface (physical) article can then be eliminated since the I believe it to be a misnomer coming from the software oriented Interface (computer science) article.

Any comments, suggestions?

Tom


 * No problem, I could see your point about electrical connector being insufficient, I just felt that in the absence of an immediate better solution my edit should have remained. I was told in no uncertain terms by another editor that this isn't accepted policy, so sorry for my misunderstanding there.
 * In any case, the draft looks good, and that's exactly the sort of compromise I was suggesting (it's better than any of the previously discussed solutions to the issue, I would think). I noticed that there's a merge proposition on the page which comes from a redirect, though: the redirect currently points to protocol, but I agree that this section would be a better target, as redirecting interface to protocol as is currently the case doesn't really make sense; be aware that the redirect needs to be retargeted, however, and there is no need for a merge here.
 * I'd recommend creating a page of its own in your userspace rather than putting it in your sandbox, giving it a few more references, then I'll see if I can improve it (and doubtless others will be interested in editing it as well), and it should be ready to be moved into mainspace.
 * Thanks for letting me know about this draft.

 Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Relocated to User:Tom94022/Interface_(computer_science).
 * Sorry about the lack of signature, must have fallen asleep :-)
 * I'm the source of the merger suggestion, but I haven't had time to research it. Hopefully one of the originators of the two articles will pick up that ball.  If not, I suppose I will have to :-(
 * I'm watching yr talk space and the draft article so I'll get yr comments either place Tom94022 (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that u moved the article from userspace without giving me time to comment on your changes; I have some concerns/objections as follows:
 * 1) Rather than eliminate the Merge flag we should be discussing whether to redirect Interface (object-oriented programming) to this article or Merge Protocol (object-oriented programming) into this article. The simplest solution would be to Redirect redirect Interface (object-oriented programming) to this article and then include a see also link to Protocol (object-oriented programming) in the OOP section - that way we don't make any editorial changes.
 * 2) I don't know what u mean by "wikifying" the introduction but I think taking the examples from the introduction makes the article less useful to the average reader and see the next point as to the examples u do use.
 * 3) I don't buy that User Interface should be treated any differently than Hardware or Software in the introduction. Furthermore I suggest your second sentence is misleading, since IMO:
 * "the means of communication between the computer and the user by means of peripheral devices such a monitor or a keyboard" is either a hardware interface or a user interface, and
 * ""the means of communication between the computer and the user by means of ... an interface with the internet via Internet Protocol" is a hardware interface.

I'll wait a reasonable time for your comments here before trying my edits in the article. Tom94022 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Tom94022 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:MOS for what I mean by "wikify". I removed the merge template since merge didn't apply in the situation you listed; I have no objection to you setting up the redirect and starting a discussion regarding merging Protocol into the section though, but I would oppose the merging of Protocol; I think protocol is a complex enough topic that it deserves its own article.
 * The Protocol (object-oriented programming) article begins, "In object-oriented programming, a protocol or interface" which to me means they are synonyms in context of this article and therefore should be considered for merger. I am going to add it back in but make the alternatives clear. I agree that a broader article on protocols in general would not be a candidate.  Tom94022 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this later; by the way, I didn't remove the merger proposition because I disagreed that it should be merged with protocol; I removed it because it suggested it be merged with a page which is a redirect, which didn't make sense. If you're readding it, be careful to specify the correct article name (i.e. the Protocol article, not the redirect), and open a discussion re: the merger on the talk page. I'll comment on this once I've looked into it a bit more thoroughly. However, while it may be suitable to merge interface and protocol, they are similar concepts but not identical. I will find some references for this and for other aspects of the article later; at the moment the main limitation of this article is that it needs referencing.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  19:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the user interface, please read my statement in the article more carefully, and feel free to edit it if you feel it could be clearer. I was giving some examples of computing interfaces which do not fit neatly into either hardware or software interface categories: one of which being a user interface, where the computer receives input via a keyboard, for example, and gives output to the user via a monitor. While these are hardware devices used to achieve the communication, I don't think it'd be correct to call it a "hardware interface" as the computer is interfacing with the hardware, and the hardware is acting as an interface with the user. Similarly internet protocol involves both hardware, as a physical link to the internet via a modem, potentially a router, etc., but also a software interface, which is internet protocol, and at a higher level, also TCP, and protocols based on TCP.
 * In my view the user interface is a software interface talking thru hardware interfaces to a user, but I think it is enough significant to represent a third category of interfaces in computer science. On the other hand what u call the internet protocol IMO can be classified into layers of software and hardware interfaces.  We both have opinions, I did a fair bit of research and have cited two references so far - right now I am looking for a User Interface reference in computer science art.  Assuming I find one, I will rewrite the intro and I hope u will then find references before you further edit.  Tom94022 (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Arguably, any interface involving a computer is going to involve software, hardware, or a combination of the two; I introduced the concept that some interfaces may involve a complex system of with both software and hardware interfaces, for example user interfaces or internet protocol.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope that's provided some clarification. Of course I welcome your input, but I felt it'd be best not to delay, and to simply move the article into mainspace and work on it there; that way the article can also benefit from the contributions of others. As an open encyclopedia, I have no problem with you making whatever changes you see fit, but if I disagree strongly on a particular point I will of course seek to start a discussion on the subject in talk and reach an agreement about what would be best for the article.


 * I think that clarifies all of the issues you mentioned; let me know if you have any more concerns.


 *  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  20:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW WP:MOS doesn't really help on what u meant by Wikify, and a Wikipedia search takes u to:
 * "To format using Wiki markup (as opposed to plain text or HTML) and add internal links to material, incorporating it into the whole of Wikipedia."
 * Tom94022 (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I hadn't noticed this part of your message before. Wikify just means to bring a page up to wikipedia standards according to WP:MOS. The most significant features which articles may lack is the lack of internal links to other articles, poor writing style, etc. Generally the tag is simply used to indicate that the article's style needs to be improved, as per WP:MOS.   Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Zafira (disambiguation)
Ok, I'm not certain what to do with this one. It's a new yet unnecessary disamb page. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  00:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see the difficulty here; there's no article for the first entry though, so I've listed it as G6, uncontroversial maintenance: no need for a disambig page, so delete it. I've also included an explanation to make it clearer to an admin reviewing the nomination.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  00:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  00:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Munch!


ZeroOne has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!



Scoops has eaten your cookie! The cookie made them happy and they'd like to give you a great big hug for donating it. Spread the WikiLove by giving out more cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Thanks again!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat a cookie with {{subst:munch}}!

Malapropisms - Biology/Psychology
Hello. I know your page says to reply on my own talk page, but as an anonymous (more importantly, dynamic), it makes more sense to simply reply here. :) You're entirely correct in your understanding of the word. However (and this might not be evident unless you say them out loud), biology and psychology do sound similar. They both share the "ology" suffix, making them rhyme nicely. Additionally, due to the I/Y sounding the same, both words have matching vowel sounds entirely. Malapropisms do not require the use of homonyms; merely words with similar sounds, and this more than meets that criteria. :) (To put it another way, rhyming and sharing all the same vowel sounds makes them certainly sound more similar than the vast majority of the other examples on that page) I'll keep an eye on your talk page in case you have any further questions or would like a better explanation. :) 209.90.133.213 (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification; admittedly, this isn't the "worst" malapropism on the page. I was trying to skim some of the less clear examples off the excessively-long, poorly-cited list, but I'll concede that it's good enough to stay on the list.
 * By the way, usually I prefer replies in the location at which the conversation started but as you said, it was more appropriate to leave the reply here in this case so thanks for doing so.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  22:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll agree that the page could certainly use quite a bit of 'skimming'. :)
 * And for reference, it's only my opinion that it qualifies. If you still think they're sufficiently dissimilar to remove from the list, I'll gladly defer to your judgement and won't revert again. :) 209.90.133.213 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I'll leave it be. Really the list could do with serious cut-down, but until that happens there's no sense in removing a single quote, especially if it's not an uncontroversial removal.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  23:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Robert Dixon (mathematician)
Per your comment on Talk:Robert Dixon (mathematician) relating to Articles for deletion/Robert Dixon (mathematician) references have now been supplied, but you haven't responded.  Ty  19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I noticed your comments on the AfD discussion previously, but others were already investigating the sources you provided, etc. so I decided to leave the AfD to consensus since it is now due for closure today, and there are clearly some complicated events involved (my understanding based on the original references was that his main claim to fame is for accusing another individual of copyright infringement; a quick look at the evidence you provided on the article's talk page suggests that he is notable for other reasons, so I will withdraw my nomination; in light of the new evidence, it should survive.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking another look and responding to the additional sources.  Ty  07:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Skynet (artist)
I expanded the page --TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I realised that; please note, however, that you must not remove a speedy deletion tag from a page which you have created yourself. Note also that the speedy request has been made since the article does not demonstrate notability, and this has not been addressed yet.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See also: User talk:Jubileeclipman. Airplaneman   ✈  21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Already did :p  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with ":p" ? TylerDurdenn (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an emoticon: a smiley face with its tongue sticking out.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hoax at John Duane Park
It was an editing error - seems to have been ironed out now. I don't know what happened. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No harm done. I notice that your edit summary stated that you're using HotCat: maybe you should file a bug report.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  22:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - when I get home I shall. (I'd've done so sooner, only I got sidetracked.) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Rookf
Hello Giftiger wunsch, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I deleted Rookf, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided. The speedy deletion criteria are extremely narrow and specific, and the process is more effective if the correct criterion is used. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Blurpeace 22:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I've pretty familiar with the CSD criteria as I've used them a lot, so if I filed under an incorrect criterion it was most likely a mistake, or the page changed by the time you deleted it and my criterion was less relevant by that point. I believe I filed the speedy under G1: nonsense but I don't recall the contents of the page so sorry if I filed incorrectly or you disagreed that the page was nonsense. Thanks again for pointing this out.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  23:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The automated message is way more condescending than I would have been.  And yeah, G3, IMO, would have been the better choice. G1 is usually reserved for "djf;lsakdjf;skdjfsd" (plain gibberish). The page content was, "A Gorilla like creature with a rhino horn for a nose. / They are in constant battle with narns, reapers and robots, but they always prove to be victorious." Hope that helps. Sincerely,  Blurpeace  23:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I remember now. I usually classify this sort of content under G1, G3, or both. Since I can't mark it as both with twinkle, I often just pick the first criterion it matches in the list and be done with it, unless the page matches 3-4 different criteria, when I normally mark it manually for the sake of it. I've seen pages like this deleted as nonsense several times, so I guess individual interpretations of what is nonsense under G1 vary. Thanks for the note though, I'll bear in mind that G3 is preferred for this type of content.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  00:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sieben and Username issues
Hi there, and firstly, sorry I didn't sign the entry. I'm new to entering info here. Please inform me of where I went wrong with the 'Sieben' entry. I realised the end section expressed an opinion, but as I merely copied it from wiki last fm page I thought it must be okay.

Secondly, my real surname is Mycock, this is not a joke post.

All the best, Marge —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissMycock (talk • contribs) 08:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sieben article was filed for speedy deletion under CSD G11, indicating that the article simply advertised a company and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. I would recommend familiarising yourself with WP:Verifiability, WP:Notability, and WP:Manual of Style. If you are having difficulty starting a new article, you could try creating a draft copy in your userspace, improving it there without the risk of it being speedily deleted, and then move it into the mainspace when it is ready. If you have any questions about how to get started, feel free to ask me here.
 * Sorry for the confusion regarding the username.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  08:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010
Thank you! --Peducte (talk) 11:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

ACE inhibitors
DO ACE inhibitors increase the cardiac output?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protein Munny (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe so, yes. They inhibit the conversion of angiotensin I to angiontensin II, resulting in arterial vasodilation and therefore a decrease in blood pressure and an increase in cardiac output. This isn't my strongest area, however, so I'd recommend finding sources if in doubt. Also, this file illustrates the system.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  11:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy
See this. Starzynka (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied here.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  13:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Notable.Starzynka (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Youtube is user-submitted and unedited, and cannot be considered a reliable way of establishing notability; nor does the presence of the video indicate that the notability criteria are being met.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  14:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Leszek Gnoiński, Jan Skaradziński: Encyklopedia polskiego rocka. Poznań: 2001 however meets WP:RS.Starzynka (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MUSICBIO requires multiple published works in independent, reliable sources. Assuming that the reference is reliable and makes non-trivial mention (which is difficult to determine given that the resource is not available online and not written in English, which is preferred on English wikipedia), it is still not "multiple published works".  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  15:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Inventors of significant life-saving designs should be recognized.
{{HoldOn} Hi there, I recently posted an article on ExtremeBeam, the inventors of the modular tactical molle system for firefighters and military vets. I personally use one of these in service. Why did you delete this? I can see that you likely have no military experience or don't have any idea about what the historic value of the molle lighting system and how many lives were saved by it as it kept soldier free from the line of fire during around the corner illumination. The modular molle system has made the molle available to the foot soldier and firefighter and who know how many people around the world which have benefited from this recent design.

The size of the traditional molle and the low power of later versions made them relatively useless. The modular design allowed the units to be carried by infantry. This is perhaps one of the most significant inventions in the lighting industry that we in the military world almost exclusively have access to.. I have seen many corporate names like Mossberg and others listed for the significant inventions in guns. Why would we not list significant inventions in lighting.

Here is what Wikipedia has on Mossberg "O.F. Mossberg & Sons is an American firearms manufacturer, specializing in shotguns, scopes and firearm accessories.[4][2][3] From the 1940s through the 1960s, it also produced a line of .22 caliber target and sporting rifles.[5] Oscar Frederick Mossberg, a native of Sweden, came to the United States in 1886. He worked in the bicycle plant of Iver Johnson, a native of Norway who became became famous for his revolver. Together with his two sons Iver and Harold, O.F. Mossberg founded O.F. Mossberg and Sons in 1919.[6]"

Let's not imagine that newer historic inventions should be neglected by literary self appointed analysts who may not have experience in significant changes taking place in the world. Here is what I would like to add. If you feel it is inappropriate, please advise. [edit] ExtremeBeam

ExtremeBeam is a medium sized military manufacturer tactical lighting company which was co-founded by an German engineer and entrepreneur who enjoyed crafting fine machinery for his military and police patrons. During the mid to late 2000's ExtremeBeam was credited for the invention of the Metal Molle Modular systems used in Europe for military an civilian safety applications. The molle’s significance in saving lives cannot be underestimated. Its use to illuminate cavers and passages around corners without exposing the operator’s hands made in invaluable since World War 2. Since then, 3 significant developments have been added to the molle system making it even more valuable. The addition od LED lighting came first, the swivel head came next, and the modular molle adapter converting conventional tactical lights into molle’s in the third and most significant change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrLuminous (talk • contribs) 18:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:GNG, which explains the criteria which an article must meet in order to be considered notable. You may also wish to refer to WP:Neutrality for information on how to write a neutral, encyclopaedic article. If you can prove that the company you would like to write an article about meets the general notability criterion by providing reliable evidence that the company has received significant coverage in notable secondary sources, then it should be suitable for an article.
 * Please note also though, that you should avoid casting the company in either a positive or a negative light, as per WP:Neutrality. I would recommend you create a draft of this article in your user space, for example by creating User:DrLuminous/ExtremeBeam, and making sure it meets WP:Notability and WP:Neutrality before you move the article into mainspace.
 * If you have any further queries, you can ask them here.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  18:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sir Percy Byrnes
Please do not take my hasty tagging as a personal attack; it's just that, after your tagging, the creator modified a link on the page, so I thought he was using a trial and error approach to article writing. Hope there are no hard feelings. ;) Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 11:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I took your in the way it was intended (I think). I've advised the user that if it was indeed a test edit, he should blank the page, and that otherwise he should use the time to establish a reason why the article is worth keeping. Thanks.   Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  11:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You did the correct thing, in my opinion! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 12:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Cindy Holland(Tippfehler Nr.1)
Hi there. I just left this editor another message about the naming of military units whose original name isn't in English. Let's hope she reads it this time. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully; it would certainly make it easier for others to improve these articles. Unfortunately I think the problem is most likely that her english is only introductory or intermediate level; I have noticed in the recent article that spaces have almost never been used after punctuation marks, and occasionally directly before them, incorrectly. I've noticed this on a few pages recently, so I'm guessing it's a mistake common to many editors with certain first languages. I think I cleared up all instances of this in the article about the 1st Hungarian SS regiment.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

New Page Patrol
I actually had a similar experience a few minutes ago with the first few pages I tried to edit...--Supertouch (talk) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * With my edits? Or another editor?  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think i the case of at least one edit you beat me to the punch. Don't get me wrong, it was more of a pleasant surprise than a problem.--Supertouch (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's good to know I'm not alone in my patrols ^_^  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I placed the copypaste template on Ejido Benito Juárez because of the page number listed mid-article even though I couldn't find anything via Google either. I knew it was a longshot...--Supertouch (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that, but I agree that it looks like it's been copied and pasted from somewhere; it's a wall of poorly-formatted, unwikified text. Without being able to identify the source there's not much that can be done other than taking it to AfD though.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  21:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/9to5 – Days in Porn
I ask that you might revist 9to5 – Days in Porn to see that your concerns are now being addressed... and if you agree that decent strides have been undertaken, perhaps you might consider a withdrawl of your AFD. Thanks you,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent timing; I just withdrew it.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  22:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Much apreciated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: AFD
FYI, you tried PROD, but an IP address removed the tag. I created an AFD here: Articles for deletion/Cul-de-sac 2010. Thought you'd want to know &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me; I'll be sure to check out the AfD.  Giftiger Wunsch    [TALK]  20:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)