User talk:Jerry/Archive 7

Help please ...
Hi there, Jerry. I created the article The Legendary Estates of Beverly Hills - Unfortunately it was deleted March 31st for containing some criteria for "speedy deletion". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legendary_Estates_of_Beverly_Hills) I sincerely regret that it's just now that I'm able to take actions or seek some help. Is there any way that you can retrieve it for me, so I can do the necessary edits? I hope it's not too late. Thank you very much. I'd truly appreciate your help. Jxc5 (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, I see that Jay has already fulfilled this request. If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD of David Patchen
Hi Jerry. Wanted to drop you a note to try and find out what your thought processes were for closing the David Patchen article with Keep. The consensus was 5 for and 5 against, exclusive of the keep vote of the article subject and primary author, namely User_talk:Davidpatchen. I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia, although I have been registered some time, and I am trying to learn the correct processes and procedures. I certainly do not want to waste anyone's time! With the above article, I have been completely unable to find any reliable sources, the sources that are provided are not reliable third-party sources, plus I did leave User_talk:Davidpatchen a note regarding what I believe to be Wikipedia policies regarding notability. There has been zero activity in the article since the AfD nomination, other than my occasional addition of tagging. The article has been stagnant for almost a year, with no content provided by anyone other than the article subject. I do obviously disagree that this article meets notability requirements for Wikipedia. I appreciate your insight. Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, and thank-you for contacting me to find out my rationale with this closing. As is my custom, I will reply on the AFD talk page, so that other interested parties my also read it.  I do archive my talk page every so often, so it can be difficult to find the question and reply here, so putting it on the WT page of the AFD solves that.  Check there shortly for an answer.  If you want to discuss it further, please do come back here, though, as I will not be intentionally watching that page. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Patchen.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Jerry. Thank you for taking the time to provide your rationale at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/David Patchen. I now understand why the article was kept and the subject's notability is established per WP:CREATIVE. I am truly impressed by the subject's work, and I will endeavor to work with Mr. Patchen when/should he return to provide additional sources. Thanks again, I learned something! Best regards. --Chasingsol(talk) 05:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks and happy editing.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fashion story AfD
That was an excellent explanation of why the Fashion story article should be deleted. I'll be using parts of it in similar discussions later. Thanks for crystallizing my thoughts precisely. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I try.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Frederick Macartney
Apology accepted, and thanks for adding the content. I'm not very good at creating new text, and I make no bones about being firmly on the deletionist side of the inclusionist/deletionist divide, but I try to do more than just placing tags. For my part here, I made a couple of fixes in the article, fixed a double redirect that was created by the page move, and repointed some existing links to the new title. Thanks again for your hard work, and take care. -- Finngall talk  06:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family and civility
As the neutral admin who have seen attitude of all editors, perhaps you could comment here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC) ✅JerryBot (contribs – talk to Jerry about me) 17:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. Also, could you notify all users who voted in the voided nom that the nom has been restarted? Some may not watch the page.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

✅JerryBot (contribs – talk to Jerry about me) 17:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Jerry!
Hello Jerry, thanks for the note and glad to hear from you and to see that you are still active too. In the past year I have gotten very involved in peer review and was fairly active in DYK before that - I sometimes feel I am under-using the mop and bucket though. Hard to believe it has been a year already. Take care and keep up the good work, yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moves Me E.P
Hi,

You closed the AFD as delete. Unfortunately, during the AFD, the page had been moved to Moves Me - EP (Demi Lovato album), so your hit of the delete button just deleted the automatically generated redirect from the page move, and left the actual article intact!

Mayalld (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the heads-up.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Deletion -- Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family
Hello:

You presided over the second deletion debate for the article:

Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family

The article was deleted.

Hello Jerry, someone is trying to delete the page I just created. what's wrong ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seobob (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The article's surmountable problems were corrected and while the deletion debate raged, the article was moved for editing to:

Żądło-Dąbrowski z Dąbrówki h. Radwan

In effect, that's a new article with the old deletion notice still on it.

Before going to deletion review, this is how I've seen the debate, which should be considered in light of the new article, not the old. The old delete votes apply to the old article with the problems that caused everyone so much consternation.

It's not so much any attachment to this peculiar family that concerns me regarding this debate. The subject of the article, if you take a look at the footnotes of the new article, is notable, and the subject has been noted for centuries. The main objection seems to be the article is genealogical in nature. I don't think it is.

There are three known notable members of this family. Having to discuss the same family background in three separate articles seems ridiculous, and that's why there needs to be an article that summarizes their family background.

Summary:

The article "Radwan Dąbrowski-Żądło Family" was deleted.

I believe the article deletion nomination was ill-considered.

The article, at the time of the deletion nomination, had surmountable problems.

The problems were in the process of being fixed, while the deletion debate raged.

The subject of the article is notable, if one checks the verifiable, widely-published, third-party references included in the article.

In particular, the subject of the article is a family part of the immemorial Polish nobility.

In the 18th century, nobility tracing its origins before the 15th century represented only 5% of the noble population as a whole. I believe that makes this family, the subject of the article, notable, particularly since the family has notable members, too.

SEE: http://books.google.com/books?id=MnwmMOWK-PsC&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136

I also feel the motives behind the deletion nomination of the article were made in bad faith.

The deletion nomination, and the subsequent delete votes, seemed to be more about this article being an attempt by some champion of an upstart noble family to seek praise and glory on Wikipedia.

That was not the intent.

The article on nobility clearly states the term nobility originally meant those who were known or notable.

This family, who appears in several widely-published academic sources, is inherently notable. This is documented and the evidence supplied with the article.

Also, there are notable members of the family, with articles of their own. It seems ridiculous not to have a separate article on their background, given the family they've come from is notable. Without the article on their family, the same information about their background needs to be repeated in several articles. This is not good.

I do not think the article deserved deletion nomination in the first place, as notability is separate from fame, importance, or popularity.

Exxess (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please consult the admin who closed the deletion debate. I only made a procedural nomination as a result of voiding the first attempt at the second deletion discussion.  I can not help you and I am not interested in discussing this article/ deletion with you.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Glenrothescc promotional username block
Greetings Jerry, and thanks for responding to my username AIV report of. I was wondering if you could add the usual template to their talkpage, so that they can figure out how to change to a non-role Wikipedia account? Thanks, Skomorokh  21:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC) ✅  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

NavyNuke.jpg
I responded at your userbox image request. --Kamangir1214 (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I see another user has already changed it. But your effort is much appreciated.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Basketball sleeve
Hello,

I'm a bit puzzled about your close of Articles for deletion/Basketball sleeve. No one advocated deletion, and it doesn't seem that the content was merged anywhere. Zagalejo^^^ 17:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The nominator advocated for deletion. One user's opinion was entirely about the possibility that an article in a category (medical devices) could be notable, but did not mention anything about this actual article itself, and offerred no valid input to the disposition of this article other than to say "keep", based on the previous ethereal statement obout medical device article being potentially notable.  This opinion was entirely ignored.  Another editor went into a large dissertation about policies and protocols that have nothing at all to do with this deletion discussion other than to express that they are offended by the very concept of it; they were also ignored.  Your !vote and that of one other editor was that the article did not merit a stand-alone article, and that a redirect or merge would be a good idea.  While this sounded reasonable on the surface, the article was actually extremely small and contained no sourced content suitable for merging; it was all subjective commentary without sourcing.  Several sources were provided in the afd discussion that amply demonstrate we could likely find content outside of the article to merge elsewhere, but this does not require preserving the current article in order to do.  So the delete motion passed and editors like yourself are encouraged to go get that content that you said exists and improve the articles that you suggested could be improved by adding it.  There was no other way to close this afd as far as I can tell.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You say that the article "was all subjective commentary without sourcing", but that's not true. I added a couple of sources (a book and a newspaper article), and removed any speculation or opinion. (It's possible that someone added a lot of junk sometime between my edits and the end of the AFD, but there was a perfectly valid stub within the article history.)
 * Granted, it wouldn't be terribly difficult for me to recreate what I did, but I don't like doing extra work when I don't have to. Could you at least userfy the last version edited by me? Zagalejo^^^ 20:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. See: User: Zagalejo/Basketball_sleeve.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try looking for more sources to see if it can be expanded. If not, I'll try merging it somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I also gave a link to a Psychology Today article about these things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Robert Wone AfD
I'd actually rather you un-relisted it and closed it as "no consensus"--right now, there's a DYK that's being held up here, and relisting it effectively kills the DYK. I, obviously, believe it should be kept, and think the consensus is that it should be kept, but I can live with a "no consensus" close. Alternatively, if you felt like un-relisting it so that it stuck around until an admin who felt like closing it would have time to evaluate it, that would be OK too. Regardless, "relisting" isn't likely to do anything but garner more keep votes, since the article has been expanded extensively during the course of the AfD.

I know that's a big hurkin' mess to read, and I can see why a relisting might appear to be the best course of action, but I'm respectfully requesting you examine other options. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement for a relist to remain open for any given period of time. Any admin (or regular user following WP:NAC) can close a relisted dicussion well earlier than its new scheduled close date, without it needing to meet speedy close criteria.  Also to close the discussion would not be contrary to my relist, so would by no means be any kind of wheel war.  I looked over this discussion carefully, and believe that the discussion has changed alot since its earlier phase, and think that a little more time for the delete opinioners to review the new information and re-comment will help establish consensus.  I think this is more important than DYK.  Therefore I reluctantly decline the revert request.  No offense inended.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And none taken. Thanks for elaborating on your rationale. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

re: can-we-link-it page
Hi Jerry, The problem with the can-we-link-it-page not working should be fixed now! I was away for 2 weeks over Christmas, and for some reason the router got disconnected during this time, but did not automatically reconnect (despite being configured to do so). I've given it a kick now, and it should all be back and working as per normal. Thank you for the heads up! -- All the best, Nickj (t) 02:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks,  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You're a
tease :-) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There were three afd pages for this one discussion... had to merge them, verify duplicate !votes. Checking for SPA's/ blocked users, checking when the article changed drastically versus when people commented, weighing arguments, yada yada yada.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I still add my vote via this talk page? ;-) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 06:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can add a comment to the AFD.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 06:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Jewish stereotypes deletion
Hi - I just created a redirect from the 3rd nomination (which was deleted) to the second nomination. I am just trying to be helpful so that people following old links and watch pages will find it. If that mungs things up, please feel free to delete my redirect.

Incidentally, I think you did a yeoman's job dealing with a contentious, complex AfD - I would respect your decision either way. Wikidemon (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I did redelete the redirect page, after making sure there are no internal wikilinks that point to that page (verify).  I did not want the 3rd nom page to appear to exist in the automatic linking template on top of AFD, as it could cause confusion if the article is nominated again in the future. The next AFD for this page, should there be one, should be at the 3rd nom page.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 18:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Afd
Regarding this, I think you're adding a day too early. I believe five full days should elapse before AfD discussions should be closed. No? To check yourself, no day should appear twice at Articles for deletion, so if a day shows up as a current discussion, it should not show up as an old discussion too. Thanks. You can reply here. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is an age-old question, really... if you wait until *every* discussion on a log is 5 days old, then some are actually 6 days old. The log is a full 24 hours.  In practice, admins close afd's well before they show up on the old afd page, anyway.  The old afd page is useful for some people who have difficulty loading a full afd logpage due to the limitations of their internet connection.  Mathbot's programming has the log added at 1600hrs, which still leaves 1/3 of the discussion listed early.  One seemingly reasonable compromise might be to list it half-way through the day, but really, it is a matter of convenience for those admins in the US to have the discussions on the old afd page during their evening, which is when I add them.  Do you see it as a really big deal? If you do, perhaps you could reprogram mathbot to check the listing time and only add those afd's that are indeed >5 days old... I don't see any benefit to doing that, but maybe that would make some people happy?  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 05:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care much. What you are doing is not strictly following the policy, which says the users have full five days (at least) to discuss a deletion, but I don't see much harm practically in closing the discussions a day or half a day earlier. So let's leave things at this. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, 1600hrs is midnight according to GMT. I think the bot is doing just the right thing, it marks a page for a given day as old exactly six full days after after that page got started. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At which time several of the discussions are very close to 7 days old. This circles back to my first commetn above. Thanks for agreeing to leave it the way it is being done now.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(dedent) Just to reemphasize, I am not closing the discussions by listing the logpage on AFDO. The admins who close the discussions (yes, including myself) might be not following strict policy, if that's the interpretation of policy one is going by. But the act of listing the discussions on AFDO is by itself not covered in any policy that I am aware of. As you can see by revieweing mathbot's edits after I add the pages, there are often less than 15 discussions left on the log by that time, and never more than 50; that's out of always more that 100 discussions that were initially there. Thanks,  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Usurpation at ro.wiki
Your request to usurp the Jerry account on the Romanian Wikipedia has been solved. Razvan Socol (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks!  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

AFD Randy Oler
Hi there, you recently closed an AFD for Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop. I was wondering whether you'd be willing to reconsider the result please.

The result was a "delete", a rough look at the !votes would suggests to me that they were tied. I also feel that the common reason for deletion, "no significant coverage other than in specialized or local media", was successfully answered by the keepers;


 * the specialized media: I think the bottom 3 posts abbreviate this part of the discussion quite well
 * the local media: The last 2 posts under 2nd delete !vote are of interest here (they serve in relation to this earlier post)

I would say that the tie makes this at least a "no consensus", but as the AFD is only 5 days old anyway, I would be more than happy for it to be "relisted to gain a consensus". Would you consider this please?

Thankyou for taking the time to read this, I hope I didn't confuse you with my above directions ;) Ryan 4314    (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed, seems irrational that the article was deleted considering the logic of many of the users who commented had no true rationale or logic or references to back up their statements. -Signaleer (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reconsidered the closing, and still think that deletion was the proper outcome. Please see the AFD talk page for further explanation.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerry, I've replied at the AFD talk page, or would you like me to reply here? Cheers, Ryan 4314    (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: AfD: Randy Oler Memorial Operation Toy Drop
I notice that you closed this without comment so I figured I'd ask you about it.

There seemed to be good arguments both for keep and delete, with the major difference being based on different peoples interpretation of when a source qualifies as "independent of the subject" per WP:N.

It seems to me that this AfD was bound to end up with "No Consensus" or maybe even "Keep" and did not expect a "Delete"

Can you please clarify?

Thanks. Raitchison (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the AFD talk page for further explanation. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RE of Werner Keil
Hi Jerry, As your email does not seem to work so well, please allow me to repeat the question why you delete one Individual Java Community Process Executive Committee (EC) member Werner Keil, while the only other Individual Member, Doug Lea in the same (SE/EE) part has a page which on the other hand he did not even know of (and care or consent)

I am not telling you to remove his, although he might do so, but the unfair discrimination of one EC or even just normal JCP member over another one is equally disrespective as if you deleted Ralph Nader just for being an Independent US Presidential candidate with little or no resources compared to Obama or McCain.

Thanks and Regards, Creative Arts & Technologies

P.s.: Help by proper support on how to use this {compu-bio-stub} (it seems, this is where the article should come from) is highly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmedia (talk • contribs)


 * Hello, there is nothing wrong with my email. I receive several emails a day from other users, so please check the address you are trying to use.  The correct address is jerry@lavoie.com .  As for your comments above, I must say that you obviously do not understand how Wikipedia works.  We do NOT try to be fair or consistent.  We do have some relevant policies and guidelines that you should review, however.  Please check out WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:COI, and WP:DELETION.  As for your comparison to Ralph Nader, I find that to be both irrelevant and illogical.  That we have an article on a similar subject is not a consideration whatsoever when determining whether this article meets our inclusion criteria or not.  As a user-generated site, we have a lot of stuff that does not belong here... the job of deleting it all will never be done, as is the case with improving and finishing the rest.  Wikipedia will always be A WORK IN PROGRESS.   Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Instead of philosophy about how relevant or logical you consider the Java Community Process or Sun Microsystems (after all one of Wikipedia's powerful sponsers or even providers of your infrastructure !! ;-) could you please explain how this entry causing Doug Lea's inclusion here ("stub") works, so I can work on using that in the proper way.

Cheers, CAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catmedia (talk • contribs) 10:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your question. There is no process whereby articles get created, except for somebody, anybody, perhaps you, to just type in the page name and press "edit".  No committee approves articles ahead of time or anything like that.  Maybe I am totally misunderstanding what you have asked.  Perhaps for faster service, just place  on your own talk page: User talk:Catmedia, and somebody will be along in a jiffy to help you.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

An AfD you will be interested in
See Articles for deletion/Die Glocke. AWT (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"banter"
Discussion of systemic bias on Wikipedia is not "banter," particularly when it relates directly to the deletion (or non-deletion) of an article. In this case, we were discussing the fact that Wikipedians have a documented bias toward being young, white, overprivileged, male, and nerdy, and that this bias is responsible for giving disproportionate importance to schools (and thus lists of highschools). SmashTheState (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A discussion that would be fine for any of the following venues:


 * WT:CSB
 * WT:DELETION
 * WT:N(hs)
 * WP:PUMP
 * WT:AFD
 * User talk:SmashTheState
 * User talk:Drvoke
 * The discussion was not pertinent to the deletion debate for the article, except in a meta-policy way. I was assuming good faith by calling it banter, in that it could have been intended to be funny and kidding.  Otherwise, it was a comment about editors, not the article and its merits and shortcomings, and would serve to insult the other editors. Its absense from the deletion discussion has no effect on the outcme, so it should remain on the talk page.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And I was assuming good faith by taking for granted that the Wikipedians involved would be capable of taking their own personal biases into account when they were made aware of them, thus possibly changing their decision. I contribute to WT:CSB, but this project is useless unless it can be applied on a practical level where decisions are being made.  Making others aware of the existence of a bias of which they may not be aware may or may not be insulting, but it is certainly necessary if Wikipedia is to be anything but the world's largest collection of Pokemon and Star Wars trivia. SmashTheState (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I honor and value your opinion on this matter; however I must request hat when participating in community consensus-forming discussions such as AFD that you observe the wikietiquette of not commenting on the participants of the discussion, but rather the actual purpose of the discussion. When two editors have a direct conversation with eachother, addressing themselves individually rather than making a statement to all of the participants in an AFD, it is a sign that something is possibly going wrong.  When the substance of that discussion is a statement that the other participants are biased and ignorant, then that is certainly over the line.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote was hardly banter. What it WAS, was a follow-up to let others participating in the discussion know that I had read what they had referenced for their arguments, found it unconvincing, and kept my position of Delete. Can you please give me the wikipedia guideline that relates specificially to banter and how it gives you the right to put our arguments down the memory hole? I'm having some trouble finding it. Thanks. —Drvoke (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Banter
 * WP:ADHOM
 * WP:RPA says: "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate."
 *  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * None of these are helpful.. at least insofar as they don't at all justify your actions in censoring debate. —Drvoke (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Try somewhere else then. I am not all that interested in having an ongoing argument with you over it.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I should try somewhere else to find justification for your censorship? Tell me who else is responsible for your actions and I'll take it up with them, certainly. —Drvoke (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am invoking my Talkpage Rule #5.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Biscuits and gravy
Thanks. I was kind of surprised that most people didn't seem to realize that Australians actually do attend school after 10th grade. I imagine that there are probably several junior highs that are called "Martin Luther King Junior High School". Oh well. Mandsford (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion please...
I have updated the Wikipedia article about Melih Abdulhayoglu, the CEO of Comodo.

I would value your opinions and edits of the article. This time I have tried extra-hard to keep the tone neutral. I would really appreciate your suggestions.

I feel that Melih is notable, not only for his patents, but also for his philanthropy. Because of Melih's business model, Comodo ensures that every Internet user has access to free firewall, antivirus and other security software. Comodo security software is now installed on 10 million computers worldwide. I don't know how to explain this on Melih's bio without sounding like puffery, but I wanted you to know about it. Thanks for your help. Lakshmi VB Narsimhan 09:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakshmin (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry I have not replied in a more timely fashion; I have been unable to access the internet reliably due to construction at my home. Please defer your question to somebody else, or wait until I have better access to fully research and reply.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion procedure for Category:American expatriate Wikipedians
Is it normal procedure to delete a category when the only opinion expressed is that of the editor proposing deletion? Personally, I think that deciding an issue that has attracted so little interest in favor of the status quo is a safer policy.

Regarding the category itself, I would have voted against its deletion. While it is certainly not heavily used, I think that it is potentially useful for identifying collaborators on some projects, and does little harm to leave in the database.

-- Meyer (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The category was listed for 16 days without any other comments, over three times longer than the required 5 days. Unfortunately, at that point a closer has virtually no choice but to close as delete, as that was the only opinion presented. This isn't all that uncommon, especially at UCFD where participation is lacking to say the least (see here and here, just to name a few, for similar occurances). Also, sorry for not notifying you (I know you didn't mention it, but I'm sure it went through your mind- It isn't required, but I generally like to anyway. Lately I've been slacking in that regard, mostly because of how long UCFDs often stay up for discussion these days). VegaDark (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with VegaDark, above. Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you help me with a deleted page?
The article on The Shangri-La Diet was recently deleted as being "advertising" (n.b. I didn't create the page). The page discusses a weight loss plan used by hundreds of thousands of people. It does also discuss the book where the plan was first proposed, but this is not "advertising" in any more sense than the thousands of other article about books and movies, etc. Also this was deleted without any warning at all. Thanks, Alight (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I have not replied in a more timely fashion; I have been unable to access the internet reliably due to construction at my home. Please defer your question to somebody else, or wait until I have better access to fully research and reply.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT
Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. Richard 0612 23:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks,  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your closing of an MfD
Hello, I've been away for a long while, and I've just come back to discover there was an AfD just after I left concerning something I was interested in, namely:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Organisation of Bible articles.

I've noticed that you closed it as a 'speedy keep and mark as failed policy proposal'. I agree with the 'speedy keep', but I was wondering if you could tell me where, from the people's comments at the MfD, you concluded that it should be marked as a failed policy proposal, the proposal having only been 3 weeks old at that point, and the MfD not having been open for long enough to reach such a final conclusion about its success/failure. Clinkophonist (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, this is beyond a reasonable review period. I think I recall this having been discussed in several different venues at the time, but as I said, it is now too long ago to re-research at this point.  Nothing on Wikipedia is permanent; if you wish to reopen the discussion, perhaps a good place to start would be Village Pump (policies and proposals).   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

deletion review comments
I apologize for my choice of words at Megalithic Geometry. DGG (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Grasshopa/Opstechnology
A tag has been placed on User:Grasshopa/Opstechnology, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Alexius08 (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for The Secret Mitchell
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Secret Mitchell. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dalejenkins | 00:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your closing of Articles for deletion/List of cel-shaded video games
You asserted that "No valid argument for deletion has been advanced in the discussion below.", yet I stated several times that the article suffers from a very obvious lack of sourcing (i.e. no sources whatsoever). Lists clearly states that lists "are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others", so why did you oversight that fact for this list? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources are required for content that is controversial, and/or likely to be questioned. List articles rarely provide inline citations and sources where inclusion is obvious.  If an editor asserts a reasonable objection to a particular item being included in the list, then a source should be provided.  This is a maintenance issue, however, and does not require deletion to solve.  The argument that had "pseudo-consensus" was that there was already a category, and therefore a list should not be allowed.  That argument has no merit, however.  At the end of the discussion, I found no valid arguments for deletion in the discussion, whatsoever; and therefore I closed it closed as keep, accordingly.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "List articles rarely provide inline citations and sources where inclusion is obvious." Where is the policy supporting this? Just because something is common habit across Wikipedia doesn't mean it is acceptable, and there is definitely not, as far as I know, a policy or guideline supporting inclusion of unsourced content on the subjective basis that it is "obvious". WP:RS states that "if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." List of cel-shaded video games, lacking even a single source, is a clear example of this.
 * P.S. Please reply on my talk page in future, otherwise I may not get your comments. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 19:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If something is done widely across Wikipedia, but not specifically described in a policy document, then it IS acceptable. That is how our non-beaurocatic consensus procedure works.  The deletion policy is very clear on the point that if the objections to a particular article can be repaired by editing, and that deletion does not correct a serious issue such as violation of BLP, then deletion is not an appropriate outcome.  Feel free to submit a deletion review if you still feel this close was not appropriate.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The necessity for sources in lists is described in a guideline, though, as I quoted above from Lists. We should not be contradicting the already-established consensus in the guideline in favour of the smaller "consensus" established in the AfD which was based purely on the fact that the list is not redundant to the category of the same subject. Regardless of whether this is true, lists, like all content on Wikipedia, must nonetheless be notable and verifiable by direct citation of reliable sources, something which, as I stated in the AfD, this one fails to do. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion and to have a narrow interpretation of any policy or guideline you choose. This does not obligate others to follow your lead, however.  I understand the points you have tried to make, but I simply do not agree with you in this situation.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I'm not so bothered about this now. I'll leave it for now to allow it to be expanded. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 22:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

About
Hello, not too long ago a user known as asked you to block his page because he was going into combat, I am not sure if you got the email sent you, so I will tell you myself, has ben back from combat for almost 3 weeks as his email may or may not have said, I am sure he would like his account back. I am acctualy a friend of his, we served together a few years back. His real name is. I was wondering, for his sake soley, If you got the email.--Sharpterov (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but I can not discuss another members specific account information with you. I have redacted your post above, since you broke a wikipedia policy by posting a members real-life identity on a publically-accessible page.  Please do not do this again in the future.

It is not possible for me to verify the user's email address to his now-blocked wikipedia account. Please advise him to follow the instructions provided at WP:AAB.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Mitrovica Bridge.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mitrovica Bridge.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem; the person who owns the web page that this image was copied from, has changed the licensing terms since I grabbed the image.  This is really not allowed... once a person releases something into public domain with no restrictions for use, they generally can not undo such a release; (unless they had erroneously infringed upon another persons rights to the image).  However, since the article in which I used the image currently has a better image of the subject, it is a moot point.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Image:Tipi Inside
Hello, I've transferred [[Media:Tipi_Inside.png]] to the without your permission, hope you don't mind. ----WWBread (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem at all!  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding a Deletion Review for the Deaf Wikipedians category []
The grandfather vote is referred to [] here (it's the third vote). I have a tally of the actual vote results at my talkpage and it seems that it was globally 6 keep, 7 delete and 1 abstain, with individual subsections going from 8k-5d-1a for Deaf to 6-7-1 for most of the others. The vote itself was declared "Delete All per strength of augments", however, the only augment I can trace is
 * "This category presents little or no collaborative potential. Having a particular condition does not necessarily give a user enough knowledge about said condition to collaborate on it. In any case, such collaboration would be original research. ^demon[omg plz] 15:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)"

Along with a mention that deceased wikipedians also exists. In the case of deaf, the idea that deaf people can form a cultural group is, while contested by some people, not original research, and in many cases it would be trivial to actually dig research about some of these groups and collaboration. There is currently a wikiproject: deaf among other things, which puts the lie to the idea that it was a valid comment, and it would also then put the question: what of other categories? Ethnic categories, too, then, would be subject to this kind of question but are ignored because that kind of association is relatively expected and taken for granted, whereas Deaf gets recreated and deleted every once in a while because of a grandfather vote that was swayed by augments that ignored the community elements of some of the subcategories put to the vote rather than any consensus. Which is why I think this should be reconsidered.

Thank you for your time. Snapdragonfly (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * 03:53, 6 January 2008 Jerry (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Category:Deaf Wikipedians" ‎ (CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material per WP:UCFD 25 July 2007)
 * Hello, I am not the correct person to consider this appeal. I did not administratively determine the consensus of the UCFD discussion which resulted in the deletion of the category.  I merely enforced via WP:CSD, the prohibition of recreating material that has been deleted by a community consensus process.  I actually did not read or consider any of the arguments in the discussion, and my deletion is not a statement of agreement with the determination of consensus in the discussion.  The proper procedure to follow when one believes that the consensus determination was flawed, that the discussion lacked pertinent information or contained flawed information which could have affected the outcome of the discussion, is to bring the matter to Deletion Review for reconsideration.  Alternatively, if you believe that the policies or precedents involved should be challenged, you could bring the matter to the Village Pump.  So the only thing I can reconsider was my actual speedy deletion, which I find was in-fact proper, with no prejudice against reconsideration of the original discussion as suggested above.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks for the info. Snapdragonfly (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Cumberlandhsnsw.png)
 Thanks for uploading File:Cumberlandhsnsw.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.  Zoo Fari  02:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is all sorted out now. Thanks.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

 * Thanks, but I am not really all that interested in the discussion.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Jerry! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Brent Taylor (American film actor) -


 * I removed the tag. There was no violation of BLP; no contentious material in the article, nor in any of its edit history.  Although the article does lack citations, there is no need for the tag.  The listed external link does present a source for the material in the article, all of which is non-personal and non-controversial (simply a listing of films and television shows the actor has appeared in).  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Trepanation (disambiguation)


The article Trepanation (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Trepanation redirects to Treppaning and there is only one other use which is covered by the hatnote on treppaning, therefore nothing links here.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wizard191 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is clear that others objected to the deletion of this DAB, by denying your CSD and removing your PROD. I also undid several of your changes to it, with an explanaion in my edit summary.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD of Chris Musni
Hi Jerry. In September 2008, you deleted my article on Chris Musni. See. He has recently appeared on television on Asia Uncut [performing stand-up comedy. Would this development make him notable enough for wikipedia? Gchuva (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Possibly. Perhaps you should create an article in your user space, including proper citations to the sources of the new content that you think would qualify the subject for notability per WP:N.  Once you think the article is ready for mainspace, ask some of the people who !voted for its original deletion.  As the admin who performed the deletion, I had less interest in the article itself, but rather just oversaw the determination of consensus of those other participants who opined in the deletion discussion.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Trepanation (disambiguation)
I have nominated Trepanation (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Trepanation (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wizard191 (talk) 18:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed the AFD as keep.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Help:Interwiki redirect demo listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Help:Interwiki redirect demo. Since you had some involvement with the Help:Interwiki redirect demo redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. I have opined there.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Second White Terror
I have nominated Second White Terror, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Second White Terror. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Defender of torch (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed the AFD as keep.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of First White Terror
I have nominated First White Terror, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/First White Terror. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Defender of torch (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I closed the AFD as keep.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

High schools
Can you help me find that wonderful essay on the notability of high schools? Maybe it should be linked directly from the AfD page!--otherlleft 14:48, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean Notability (high schools)?  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure did! I haven't been doing too much AfD recently and, not surprisingly, WP:NHS is still quite relevant!--otherlleft 12:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed creation of a disambiguation page at 3RR
You are invited to join the discussion at. PleaseStand (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC) (Using )
 * I went ahead and moved it and closed the discussion. Thanks, and good work!  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stevan Knezevich


The article Stevan Knezevich has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unable to find any reliable sources that establish the notability of this musician. Fails WP:MUSIC and the general notability guideline

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 03:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank-you for the notification. As the sole contributor to this article, agreeing with the PROD concerns, I have deleted the article via CSD. I think I created this after cleaning-up a DAB page, and doing a google search on this or a similar name... I had intended to go back and flesh-out the article and include references.  But upon review, I don't think it can currently meet notability requirements, so hence the deletion.  Thanks,  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Page: Miguel Corral Rivera
hi, my page Miguel Corral Rivera will be soondeleted and I need a copy of thus page, because I spend many hours doing this article and i dont want to throw to the trash my best work. so please can you provide me a copy? If you need my mail it is: fbicode343728@hotmail.com Thanks for reading this message —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallyawikipedian (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * SOURCE CODE SENT AS REQUESTED.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Reconsideration for Hearthmath article
Hi. I would like to request review of a revised draft of hearthmath article that was deleted by you, and then later by a user NawlinWiki, who said the article was blatant advertising. Please see my userpage for the revised version. Please let me know what needs to be done to make the article wiki appropriate. I believe the subject matter is notable. Thanks. Dcsm23 (talk) 20:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ABOVE USER IS A BLOCKED SOCKUPPET.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance
Category:Scholars and leaders of nonviolence, or nonviolent resistance, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I created that category as part of carrying out the closure of a CFD, per the consensus of the discussion. I do not have any interest in the topic of the category or in the proposed deletion of same.  Thanks for informing me, though.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 21:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

List of Korean Conflict Bronze Star recipients
Please see my comments regarding List of Korean Conflict Bronze Star recipients. --S. Rich (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your points seem valid.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Pon farr.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pon farr.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Pon farr.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pon farr.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:SurgeonsWife.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SurgeonsWife.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

File:NormalLife.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NormalLife.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Damiens .rf 15:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Reopening of a page
Hey Jerry,


 * shels http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=*shels and shelsmusic (http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Shelsmusic) were pages that were closed in 2008, but I think they are more relevant now, as well as the subsequent links. The shelsmusic label has some noteworthy artists now.

I am new to this whole thing, so please excuse ignorance.

Thanks

Robin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinhood2010 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Robin, perhaps create a page in your user space and then ask somebody to review it to see if it would be appropriate to put it into mainspace.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sudetenland
Hi Jerry, it looks like you removed Category:Sudetenland because it was empty. There are a large number of articles that would fall into this category so I'd like to recreate it. Just to give you an idea click here. I'd like to make it a sub of Category:History of Germany by location --Hutcher (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No objection.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Belated reply, re: starting with the left pinky
On New Year's Eve, you wrote:


 * You once said in a AFD: "If you are building a robot, you can start with just the left pinky." I love that.  Happy New Year!  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

They've already gone beyond the left pinky. See Shadow Hand.

Reminds me of this

If that's not freaky enough, they've progressed incrementally from there. See Robonaut.

It won't be long before they have an android that is at least as functional as a human being.

What will happen then?

Food for thought, The Transhumanist 21:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Makes me think of the Jeff Goldblum line from 'Powder' (1995): “It has become appallingly clear that our technology has surpassed our humanity.”  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Categories on a User page
I have removed the categories from User:Jerry/RKHS as per User_pages. TheAuthor22 [Talk] 09:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

revision history on deleted articles?
When an article is deleted, why can't I view the revision history? Does it hurt Wikipedia to still have that available?

I know you may not be the right person to ask, but I don't know who else to hit this with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.208.188.68 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Articles that are deleted often contain libelous, unverified, offensive or promotional images and text, whihc we keep from public view. If you have a legitamate need to view a deleted article, any administrator can temporarily restore the file to your user space or email the source text it to you, at their discretion.  A commonly accepted reason for providing source text to an individual would be for the purpose of attempting to improve the article to make it acceptable to put in mainspace, another is to allow the original author to have their work back for use elsewhere.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LPHS logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:LPHS logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This should have been researched more thoroughly before tagging for deletion. The image was previously used in the article stated in the fair use criteria on the image description page, but was removed with no explanation by an anon.  I restored the image and put it back in the article.   Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:WMCHS logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:WMCHS logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.


 * Possible bot error; image is not orphaned, it is still used in the article listed in the fair use rationale on the image description page.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Reid Baer(2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. damiens.rf 20:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary
Wishing Jerry a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! S M S  Talk 17:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BennyHill.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:BennyHill.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 04:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I speedy-deleted it.  Jerry   delusional ¤ kangaroo 14:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview
Dear Jerry,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talk • contribs) 23:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday (2012)
'''Wishing User: a very happy birthday on behalf of the Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 22:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Einstein Academy (Elgin, Illinois)


The article The Einstein Academy (Elgin, Illinois) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Fails organizational notability without a single reliable source that reads like an advertisement.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. ( X! ·  talk )  · @170  · 03:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am still here.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Einstein Academy (Elgin, Illinois)
Hello, and thanks for creating this article back in 2008. It's been tagged for notability for 4 years now. You may want to read WP:Notability (schools), WP:NOTABILITY and see if you can improve the article, particularly with reliable sources. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice to see your date stamp
Wondered where in real life you'd been. Happy to know you're alive and well. Welcome back. BusterD (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)