User talk:Hut 8.5/Archive 10

Note that if you want to retrospectively alter your signature, retarget a redirect or other trivial change I don't really care. Hut 8.5 22:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Conduct of WLRoss
It appears that in the past, you have had some experiences with User:WLRoss (also known as "Wayne") on the 9/11 terrorist attack articles. I have started a Request for Comment on the conduct of WLRoss here and I would appreciate your participation in the discussion, if you can contribute anything regarding your experiences. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bibliographies
Thank you for your reply on my question on page about DRV of List of sources about claims that Vojsava Kastrioti was Slav. Will you please be so kind to inform me if there is a wikipedia policy which says that bibliography articles on wikipedia should be "either lists of books written by famous authors (Charles Dickens bibliography) or lists of books about major topics"?

Thanks in advance.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I respect your administrator status and more important I respect the number of edits you had and many years of wiki experience. That is the reason why I approached to you with my question. I know that page about DRV would be more appropriate place for this discussion, but I would like if you can help me accept the consensus that was basis for deletion of the article, before I take any further action in DRV process.
 * The first step in accepting the consensus is identifying one. That is why I asked you a simple question "Why was this article deleted?"
 * Your answer was because there was consensus about it
 * I asked you please take in consideration that "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority."
 * You answered "this AfD exhibited it"
 * I asked you two questions:1) what policy this consensus was grounded in and 2) what arguments were brought to explain why that policy was violated
 * You said: Consensus was grounded in many policies like WP:POVFORK and WP:NOT.
 * My opinion:
 * WP:POVFORK: Nobody mentioned WP:POVFORK during the discussion in AfD process, so it could not be the reason for deleting the article. POVFORK exists if "another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." Deleted article was bibliography, not another version of the biography article Vojsava Kastrioti, so I don't see how can a bibliography list be a POVFORK of biography article, especially taking in consideration that I created two bibliography lists which support both POVs.
 * WP:NOT: This policy does not even mention bibliographies, so this article being a bibliography could not be the reason for deleting it. As you said yourself, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works) covers lists of works by an individual. There are only two users that mentioned "bibliography is not article" as reason for deletion. Since that reason is not grounded in wikipedia policy, it can not be part of consensus that was basis for deletion of the article.
 * I am really more than willing to say, ok, there was consensus based on arguments grounded in wikipeda policies and that consensus was reason for deletion of the article. Till now, I haven't seen such consensus. If you did, please help me identify it.
 * English is not my native language, so maybe I am missing some point because of that. Therefore please have patience if I failed to understand some arguments.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

BLPs.
Re : BLPs include "information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" per Biographies of living persons, so the BLP template is valid for this page, and gets more attention than "unreferenced" templates. -- Jeandré, 2011-04-25t22:04z

Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellowship
Hello,

I've written this article from scratch without copying or rewording anything from the official website. It is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Supertigerman/Herbert_Scoville_Jr._Peace_Fellowship. I was hoping you could give me the thumbs up to create this page again. Thank you! Supertigerman (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you removed
some text from Jim Gordon (musician). As someone very familiar with Gordon's story I am aware that the material that you removed is mostly, if not all, correct. It seems to me that a "citation needed" tag wold be a better way to deal with this material. I am on the road and not in a position to do much research but the details of Gordon's unfortunate life are pretty well documented. Hopefully you will do a little looking around and then revert your last edit and restore that section of the article. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. So please take a look at this web site and see if it meets wikipedia's standards.  it is the first one I've looked at, but the story will be the same.  http://www.jamiethompson.net/jim_gordon.htm

Carptrash (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * More -  http://www.drummerworld.com/drummers/Jim_Gordon.html

And more: http://www.spinner.com/2008/07/03/twisted-tales-ace-session-drummer-jim-gordons-crazy-beat/
 * I'm hoping you'll say that this or that or all the above will suffice. http://rulefortytwo.com/secret-rock-knowledge/chapter-7/jim-gordon/
 * Keith Richards in his autobiography, Life (citation upon request, p. 133) states "and on drums was Jimmy Gordon......Eventually he hacked his mother to death in a schizophrenic rage and was sentenced to life in California. But that's another story."

Thanks, it looks good. I am about to drive a friend who just had brain surgery from Phoenix, Arizona to Dixon, New Mexico and am not in my best wiki mode. I appreciate your picking up my slack. Carptrash (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you check this user?
User:HXL49 has made a personal attack on my talk page. He also appears to be arguing in his edit summaries. Finally his user talk page, specifically once you press edit, appears to attack (for lack of better words) all other users. Ryan Vesey (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WU LYF
You are invited to join the discussion at Articles for deletion/WU LYF. Robman94 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC) (Using )

CSD#R3
Well "recently" is expandable ... and if noone noticed that implausible typo, what's the sense in keeping it? It isn't used at all! a x p de Hello!  21:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

About 2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles
Well, you reverted a tagging of mine on the article claiming that they were inapplicable, but if you looked back on the history, that you probably had gone through when you barred me on my talk page about my incomprehensibly CsD, you'd see that this article already went through a somewhat unresolved CCI case, I'll nominate the article for deletion, because it has many deficits for what it takes to stay on WP. Regards Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

AfD: Cort Webber and Bobby "Fatboy" Roberts
This is a courtesy notice given your prior involvement with Articles for deletion/Cort and Fatboy or its deletion review (Deletion review/Log/2011 April 10) that these related articles are currently listed at AfD at Articles for deletion/Cort Webber. As attribution issues are involved, closure of this current AfD may result in the restoration of the earlier article, as a list of contributors would be necessary if the articles are retained. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Martin O'Brien
Hi, just a courtesy note that I have declined the Prod on Martin O'Brien because the subject has some clear claims to notability. I agree that it is a very poor page but I am not convinced that it can't be better sourced. TerriersFan (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I've started an AfD here. Hut 8.5 17:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Alan Aranoff article
Hi. I was surprised to see an article about Alan Aranoff deleted. Information about Alan Aranoff is covered in a book about Israeli Architects. You can review a description of some of his work on the summary page at Barnes and Noble - http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Israeli-Architects/Books-LLC/e/9781156508411 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torah613 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Please help
Hi Hut,

I am posting this with reference to the deletion of the page "Voobly" from wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voobly). I would like you tell you a few things about this issue. It's been written that voobly page was deleted saying "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". First of all Voobly is not a business and second, we did not create page to promote voobly. If some unknown did something in the past then I would to inform you to it was not us. Age of Empires is an old retired game. But people always wanted to play this as this is an evergreen game. So Voobly was formed as a result of that. Voobly was a community where people from all across the world play their favorite game Age of Empires online for FREE. It was not at all a commercial project. Even the official game creators(Microsoft Games) added voobly in their list. Please check the below link. http://zone.msn.com/en/general/article/aoferetiring

I sent the same post to Sandstein and he suggested me that I will not be able to write an article about it unless I can establish that the topic is notable. I can see that some unknowns tried to create page for Voobly with wrong intention. It has nothing to do with Voobly. I would like to request you help me in removing Voobly from blacklist so that I can create an article on this.

I also created an article following the suggestion by Sandstein. But Wiki is not allowing me to submit it showing the below text: 10:13, 21 September 2009 Hut 8.5 (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Voobly" ‎ (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)

I am pasting my article text here. I request you kindly check it and help us please. Also I have no idea about how to request to unban Voobly from blacklist. I request you please help me in this regard.

Article:

Voobly is an Internet gaming service for the Windows computing platform. The service includes custom software and unlike other gaming services is not strictly web-based. Voobly was first released in Septemper 20th 2009 for Windows. The service today supports over 200 titles.

In addition to hosting and playing games the service acts as a chat room with varied topics, forums for clans, detailed profile interface, social networking features for players. Changes in networking technology as well as market expectations have also largely eliminated online play for many classic games such as Age of Empires, Age of kings, Age of Mythology, Midtown Madness etc. Voobly continues to support wide range of such games. This service also provides NAT Traversal, which helps the people to eliminate manually forwarding ports and allows multiple LAN players to easily play in the same game room.

Voobly is available to download for free at the Voobly Website. Voobly isn't a commercial website. Unlike other sites Voobly does not charge for what consider basic services such as ratings and friends lists. It's community driven, entirely written and funded by people. Voobly was also suggested by Microsoft as a place to play for Age of Empires II game(check for the link under references).

CSD denial at Asansol Arunoday High School
I also nominated this article for CSD under db-g2 because it had the appearance of someone experimenting with Wikipedia, however the user deleted the CSD template and the bot failed to see the 2nd CSD and failed to restore it. I am not sure if you have to decide on one CSD criteria when more than one seem to be at play, so I listed two. I can re-list it for db-g2, but due to your changes, it no longer fits that criteria. I guess I've worked out in this talk message that the problem is solved. I would delete this message, but perhaps my assumptions are wrong, given one of the CSD was deleted by the creator? Thanks. --TimL (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip Schram
Can you tell me why you reomved my page? Thanks, Philip Schram — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.252.116 (talk) 03:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Philip Schram
Hello, Can you tell me why you removed my page? Regards, Lezebre (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Philip Schram

George Herbert Walker IV
Thanks for helping out with George Herbert Walker IV - it still has work to do but it's a good start (and is still on my to-do list) :) nprice (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Dark Orbit → DarkOrbit
Hello, I wanted to ask you about your deletion of the article Dark Orbit.

I found the article DarkOrbit and attempted to redirect the red link but couldn't (we regular users aren't allowed to restart deleted articles?). The game appears to have some more recognition than before.

Please, could you create that redirection? Or, if in doubt, bring the topic again into deletion review?

Whatever you decide to do, please answer me in my talk page.

Thank you. —Nethac DIU (¿?), wuz heer about 12:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ebe 123 talkContribs 11:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

good catch: Nick welsh copyvio
http://www.artsbournemouth.org.uk/whats-on/2011/10/king-hammond-sound-of-the-suburbs-tribute-band/130 Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Mohammad Shehzad
Was undeleted as a contested PROD, FYI. --joe deckertalk to me 14:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Userpage
Hi there HUT, VASCO here,

did not take the time to thank you for protecting my page, i do so now. However, somehow the protection was lifted (i thought it was indefinite until i asked otherwise), and the vandalism has begun...Could you please "re-protect" me?

If you want more info regarding the punk that has been on my case, please see this WP:FOOTY discussion here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#User:Xxxx693_is_User:Lombriz_de_Aguapuerca_-_account-hopping), this is getting out of hand and my civility-meter is running out of gas!

Attentively, kind regards from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't care man, just full protect it please! Per now, i don't need to add anything else in my userpage, it's modest but it gives a good gist :) --Vasco Amaral (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hi there HUT, VASCO here,

if i understood it well, you think i exaggerated in asking for full protection in my userpage (even "against" me). I beg to differ my friend, the Colombian "user" Xxxx693 (as anon) has improved his "offensive game", now resorting to racist insults in my talkpage. I'm sorry to disappoint, i lost it and replied in the same fashion.

What on earth is this? Several users have reverted him in the Quique Flores article, i have never crossed the line in my approach to him until i saw my userpage being destroyed by this punk, and he attacks only me?! Mind-boggling.

Attentively, happy week - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S.: if you could arrange some sort of semi-protection to my talkpage i would highly appreciate it. --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

9/11
First off, top ranking al-Qaeda operatives have specifically said the Capitol Building was the target. (Inside 9/11 - Zero Hour) Second, being the one who initially wrote it to begin with, (at 6:46, 12 February 2011) I'm just correcting my mistake. --Daren420c (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

cryptography
all content needs citation, as unsourced content is to be deleted...Drift chambers (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

non-verifiable content is to be removedDrift chambers (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring?
Hut 8.5, I hope you did not accuse me of edit warring. The indent would suggest this. Nageh (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not WP:POINT
Just for your information, the admin User:SoWhy recommended I take Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log page to MfD - link. --Surturz (talk) 11:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How does initiating a consensus-building process such as MfD count as disruptive? If I had unilaterally blanked the page or something, sure. MfD however requires WP:CONS, and there is no requirement for editors to spend more than a minute or two voting keep... what am I disrupting? --Surturz (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you do not have the courage to accuse me of any specific wrongdoing, please concentrate on the discussing the merits of the MfD rather than speculating upon my motives. I am not saying that such admin log pages should not exist, merely that they should not exist forever. --Surturz (talk) 03:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "What am I disrupting?" is not a hypothetical question. I am asking you to justify your accusation of WP:POINT --Surturz (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly did ask you what I was disrupting, it is clear to see further up the page. "The page is nonlonger necessary" was my first, main, and still relevant argument. Raising an MfD when an admin encourages you to do so is not WP:POINT. Making arguments in an MfD discussion based on other MfD discussions is not WP:POINT. Furthermore, it's impossible for this MfD to be disruptive because even if the page is deleted, admins still have access to the page and can resurrect it if it becomes necessary again. Arguing for the consistent application of rules is not automatically WP:POINT, as you seem to be believe. All the examples inWP:POINT are of unilateral action by an editor to damage an article. I have not attempted to "enforce" any rule (e.g by blanking/editing the page). As an admin you should not be making accusations of WP:POINT to "play the man not the ball" in an MfD discussion, nor as an argument for the inconsistent application of rules. --Surturz (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course your administrator status is relevant here. When an administrator who boasts on his user page that he has blocked 1,385 user accounts accuses me of a policy violation, I get nervous.
 * I expect admins to follow a higher standard when it comes to bandying about policy vio accusations. I expect them to 1) understand the policy in question, and 2) have very good reason to believe that the policy has been violated. You first accused me of violating WP:POINT. POINT requires disruption, yet you have not given any evidence of disruption occurring. No content has been harmed by me, nor has any editor been hampered in any way by me in continuing to edit content. It is clear that the page in question has not been used in 2 years, so asking to delete it does not hamper the admins and even if deleted, the page content would still be available to admins via their tools.
 * Furthermore, raising an MfD is not an attempt to "enforce a rule". It is an attempt to build consensus to get a rule enforced. It puts the horse in front of the cart where it should be. As a longtime non-admin, I know full well that I cannot get anything done around here without WP:CONS.
 * You then accused me of raising the MfD dishonestly, that I do not really want the page deleted, and that this is some scheme to bring back AdminWatch in its original form. This is simply untrue. Firstly, I do actually want the page deleted, because I think that now that the editor Q____G___ has finally (finally!) been blocked from editing Chiropractic, the need for the page has gone. Secondly it would be ridiculous to think that if this chiro admin log page survives that somehow I can bring AdminWatch back in its original form. The size and scope of the AdminWatch MfD was so huge that I would have better luck pushing an entire sewage treatment plant uphill than get that MfD overturned. Third, I had a good faith reason to believe, based on admin SoWhy's comments, that raising the MfD was not in violation of policy. I informed you of SoWhy's comment, yet you repeated the accusation. For these reasons, I believe your policy violation accusations are in error, and that you should withdraw them. --Surturz (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read
As requested by BusterD I am passing this along for you to read so that you know that your efforts are appreciated.--MONGO 17:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, I'm touched. Hut 8.5</b> 20:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jason Peoples
Hi, I have to say something to you: how winners of seasons two, three, and four of the same show, Average Joe, shouldn't have articles but the winner of season one which is Jason Peoples should?? If "winning a national reality TV contest is an assertion of significance" as you said in edit summary, then it should be for all, right? also it is not a "national reality TV contest" anyways, since a national reality TV contest is a contest with competitors from all over the country and not just a few certain states. JuventiniFan (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of National Integration Council (NIC)
Hi Hut, a bit desatisfied after looking the deletion of my article, well i certainly understand that the article i uploaded had a portion of its content similar to the website..but not all, so you could have left it undersupervision instead of deleting it entirely...well whatever damage has been done is past. I would like if you can email/return my content back to me(thenextlandmark@gmail.com), i want to work on the matter again..thanks Vichitr 14:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by V2VG2G (talk • contribs)

User:Xxxx693 - User:Lombriz de Aguapuerca
Since he cannot "penetrate" my user page, let's go for the talkpage, more racist attacks (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=452131467&oldid=452050337), what a lowlife!

Thanks in advance with whatever help you can provide, keep it up - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Catherine Christian article
Hello, I did create this recently deleted article mainly by copying and pasting from another web site. I made a few grammatical improvements but did not realise that the origin site would be regarded as under copyright.

I woud be delighted to re-write the article entirely in my own words as I beleive the subject matter to be accurate and notable.

GarthJones (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Erroneous Deletion: Danny Lopez (British Consul-General)
Hi there, I'm contacting you because there appears to have been a mistake - the page for Danny Lopez (British Consul-General) has been deleted on a basis of copyright infringement. This is definitely a mistake: his biography, up on the official Consular webpage (as you've noted) was written by the Consulate, and the Consulate created his Wikipedia page using the same text as his official biography with the expressed purpose of making it readily available for all web and Wikipedia browsers. There is no copywright infringement because it was written, produced and posted on Wikipedia by the same source: the Consulate. Please restore the page at your earliest convenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.43.50 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bob Peterson
Could I get you to move User:Frietjes/Bob Peterson (Ohio politician) to Bob Peterson (Ohio politician) without redirect? Thank you! Frietjes (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and will do. Could I get you to do the same for User:Frietjes/Andy Thompson (Ohio politician)?  I believe that is one of the last that's left.  Thank you! Frietjes (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Caesar Cipher
Video is not an advertisement and simply explains caesar cipher visually. used it in my class today. Is this a problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.246.3 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a teacher who likes to add links when appropriate - and I am a subscriber to this channel. The YouTube page is not generating revenue or displaying adds. I see the stock footage is CC license from prelinger archives. You are right about ciphers taking many forms, but this video is on Caesar cipher (I guess they should have worded it differently). How else would you explain the attacks without frequency analysis? Even if you aren't using Al Kindi's method, it's still a form of frequency analysis, and the video doesn't make any claims about this.

My response

 * Thanks for quick response. However I would like to add something more to the context. AOK HeavensGames and AOC Zone are the biggest communities for Age of Kings and Age of Conquerors games. There are many articles about Voobly in them. Also RTS-Sanctuary is the most popular community site for Real time Strategy games. There are many articles about Voobly there also. Would that be considered as reliable source??


 * I would like to repeat myself again. I am not trying to promote Voobly here and I have no intention to use Wikipedia in promoting Voobly. Voobly was formed by gamers trying to save the classic games. People in Voobly volunteer their time in developing everything. So I really feel Voobly deserves a page in Wiki. Sorry for being noobish in making this post. I am absolutely new to wiki world. Please help me in this regard.
 * Forums and the websites of gaming communities aren't reliable sources in most circumstances, no (the relevant guideline is at Reliable sources if you want to look). The page wasn't deleted because we object to Voobly or its purpose, indeed I have no particular opinion on it. We're just trying to make sure the rules are followed. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hut, Thanks a lot for you time in helping me. I followed your suggestion and I based on that I spent a good amount of time in searching for articles on Voobly from neutral point of view. I am listing them here explaining their significance. Please check them and see if we can remove voobly from ban list so that I can go ahead and make an article.


 * http://zone.msn.com/en/general/article/aoferetiring
 * Microsoft mentioning Voobly for a place to play aoe2 in their site.
 * http://www.taringa.net/posts/juegos-online/10116946/Jugar-FIFA-11-En-Linea-Gratis-En-Voobly_-Online_.html
 * This is a spanish news channel. They don't have any tie-up's with voobly. Infact, they have their own page in wiki also.
 * http://xvt.uharc.net/lobby
 * Voobly being mentioned by X-Wing Vs. TIE Fighter guys to as a place to play their game online.This site has been already mentioned in Wiki under External links section(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_X-Wing_vs._TIE_Fighter). They suggested voobly as in their main site it self as a place to play their game online.
 * http://ebooks.allinfree.net/play-fifa-11-online-free-voobly-online/
 * ebooks All in free team also mentioned voobly as a place to play fifa.


 * http://games.riderdownload.com/play-fifa-11-free-online-voobly-online/
 * Voobly being metioned as a place to play fifa11 by the admins of games rider download team.


 * I am doing all the stuff from my end based on your suggestion. you asked me for at-least one article from a reliable source and from neutral point of view. All the ones that I mentioned above are not affiliated to Voobly in any context. They all are from neutral point of view.


 * As I told earlier, Voobly is not commercial. Its a free service being offered to gamers from gamers trying to save all the old classic games. That's we we don't promote voobly on other sites. That is the only reason for not having articles on Voobly so far from out side. Yet I am quite happy so see this many articles being written and published from neutral point of view.


 * I hope this info would help us in moving forward. Looking for a positive response this time. Kindly please help us. Thanks in advance.


 * None of those are even vaguely reliable. Several of your links are from sites which rely on user-generated content, which are almost never reliable. I find it hard to believe  and  are written by people unaffiliated with Voobly as they are written in the first person, and I can't see any way they would qualify as reliable sources anyway. I suggest you take the time to read WP:RS (especially the section "Self-published and questionable sources"). <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 13:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * is not an user generated content. Please check for at the bottom of the page(It says "Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported"). I have read the section mentioned by you and it says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made". I believe that that the http://xvt.uharc.net/lobby supported directly about voobly.


 * Mate, I am not arguing with you. I am seeking help from you. I see many articles in wiki are based on blogs/social communities. Yet I am not bothering about them coz I am looking forward to create a page for voobly only. Please check them again and help us mate. Microsoft mentioning about voobly, Star Wars: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter mentioning voobly as a place to play their game along with game ranger and their official client are definitely reliable sources mate. I'm sure both of these are not user generated content. We waited till last week to make voobly as a part of Microsoft's link. I request you to consider all these facts and unban us to create a page. You must also consider that it was not us that spammed about voobly in the past. We are now suffering for someone else's mistake. Yet we are trying to prove ourself by providing everything that you have asked. Please help us.


 * Of course is user-generated content. As you've just noted it's a wiki and anybody could change that page right now. The copyright status of the page is completely irrelevant to whether it is considered a reliable source (and I should point out that Wikipedia is also licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License). From WP:RS: self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. Even if this source was considered reliable I don't think it constitutes significant coverage since it's just usage instructions. The fact that it supports a statement about Voobly certainly doesn't make it reliable either.
 * Articles about subjects which don't satisfy the notability guidelines can be (and frequently are) deleted. If Voobly doesn't satisfy these guidelines then allowing you to create a new page will probably result in the page getting deleted again. It might survive a few weeks if you're lucky. Unless you can find reliable sources for the content then unprotecting the title would be a waste of time. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 14:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi any update on this?? I have been waiting from a long time to get this fixed with your help. As I mentioned earlier, the things that happened in the past are not by us. We are the only who got affected by the events that happened in the past. Also, I just noticed in the Spanish page of "Age of Conquerors"( http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Conquerors ) that the word Voobly has been mentioned(look under "Multijugador"). Infact I am very happy for this. I would like to request you to help us in this aspect. Already, I have submitted so many links to you to support us. Though some of them are user generated content, the others are from reputed neutral sites. For example, msn mentioned in this official site as well(http://zone.msn.com/en/general/article/aoferetiring). I would like to request you to help us create a page for us. We are not here to advertise or something else. We are requesting for a page here because, it is all volunteer work trying to save the old classic games.

More News Articles: http://djakartanews.blogspot.com/2011/09/age-of-empires-ii-online-dengan-voobly.html http://www.markosweb.com/www/voobly.com/

DRV
I think I'm going to stay well away from that DRV for now. If it needs said, I am not some returned banned user, and I really don't see how Warden thinks he has a case, but while he's gone on full-out personal attack mode, me responding to him will just inflame the situation, letting others handle it is probably the by far better option. 86.** IP (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Message regarding the Skin (Rihanna song) deletion debate
Hello. This is a generic message that I am sending to all of the Wikipedia contributors who have aired their views on this deletion debate. Since you last contributed your perspective, the article has been significantly expanded. You may wish to change, alter or expand your argument in light of these developments at the discussion page. Thanks. SplashScreen (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeannie Kanakos
I'm not very good at image policies. Can you have a look at the other image uploaded by the editor (now placed in the article), and check the license? Also, please leave a note for the editor: I think they're of good will, but they just don't understand all the ins and outs of this place. I made a note on image policy, but not specific to any of the images, and without too much detail. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Aaron Hanson
Hi Hut 8.5, could you explain the rationale for removing the BLP PROD from this article ? WP:BLPPROD seems quite clear to me that articles about living people must have reliable sources, not just any source. Am I misreading it? Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sparthorse. The source must be reliable. Regardless, I've nominated the article for deletion through the AfD process and invite you to participate. Pburka (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Alright, advice taken. -Vaarsivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 22:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)