User talk:Jokestress/2010

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Jokestress! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 9 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 04:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Ghigo Agosti -
 * 2) Raymond Lapin -
 * 3) Jim French (photographer) -
 * 4) Hartmut Esslinger -
 * 5) Milt Okun -
 * 6) Mitch Aliotta -
 * 7) A. Wade Boykin -
 * 8) Nathan Brody -
 * 9) Diane F. Halpern -

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Speedy deletion nomination of Hartmut Esslinger
A tag has been placed on Hartmut Esslinger, 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 unambiguous 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. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

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. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, I am not claiming I did such a great job--and let me add that this is not the first time that previous gutting by some of a select group of editors has led me astray. Those editors feel that every unsourced sentence in a BLP can be cut, and in this case, that was a lot of sentences. What was left (in an earlier version; I did look at the history, but not that far back) was not much more than the link to that self-published book. I am not happy with unsourced BLPs, I'm not happy with editors chopping content left and right, and I'm not happy with myself when I make a mistake: but you have no reason to doubt my good faith. I've been yelled at and called a deletionist, and I've been yelled at and called an inclusionist. In the meantime, I've saved and sourced a whole bunch of these BLPs recently, and I'm sorry that DGG had to save this one for me. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing of Dr. Peter I. Collins page
I am Dr. Collins. The establishment of this page was for political reasons by a person whom I am not associated with professionally, or otherwise, and appears to be motivated by a dispute with the Centre for Addication and Mental Health where I continue to have a clinical practice. As the subject of the bio, I have a right to add or delete what I feel is an appropriate reflection of my professional work. That is hardly vandalism when one considers the original intent as why the page was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.132 (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ahoy, where were you born?
I was wondering what your birth location is, so we could add it to the article about you. Tinton5 (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Willam-belli.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Willam-belli.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 21:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Melville's
A tag has been placed on Melville's, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Consors
Hi! Back in 2006 you created this page as a redirect. An unregistered IP has turned it into what appears to be a very dubious article on a nelogism (IMHO).

I'm minded to revert. Would you concur?

Cje (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your rewrite as a disambiguation looks very thorough. Cje (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

United Airlines Flight 663
Please don't remove the notability tag from United Airlines Flight 663. If you can make the case that a man smoking on a plane is notable, please do so on the article's talk page. Thanks! Janus303 (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please participate on the talk page for United Airlines Flight 663 so that we can come to a consensus. There is disagreement on whether this event is notable, and simply adding more news stories is not a sufficient reason to remove the notability flag. Janus303 (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Seymour Itzkoff
I have nominated Seymour Itzkoff, 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/Seymour Itzkoff. 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. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1900NewOrleansCookbook.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:1900NewOrleansCookbook.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Anji-xtravaganza.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Anji-xtravaganza.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Rekers' role in treating trans kids
Hi Andrea, I think some of this discussion here might be of interest to you, and be something you could be a potential contributor to Talk:George Alan Rekers, regards. Mish (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the signers of "Mainstream Science on Intelligence."
Hi, Jokestress, I have been a Wikipedian only about a month, and I see I have occasion today to edit some boilerplate paragraphs that you put into articles about psychologists in 2006. You mention each signer of the 1994 "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" article (which is VERY helpful for reference use of Wikipedia--thanks) and in each paragraph write, "s/he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence," an editorial written by Linda Gottfredson and published in the Wall Street Journal, which defended the findings on race and intelligence in The Bell Curve." I have changed most of those paragraphs to read "s/he was one of 52 signatories on "Mainstream Science on Intelligence ," an editorial written by Linda Gottfredson and published in the Wall Street Journal, which declared the consensus of the signing scholars on issues related to race and intelligence following the publication of the book The Bell Curve." so that it is clear that "Mainstream Science on Intelligence" makes no mention of the book The Bell Curve and so that (under BLP) signers who may not agree with the book are not described as someone who "defended the findings" of that book. I am acquainted with some of the signatories from my own professional research, and I think my rewrite better characterizes what they all have in common. P.S. I wanted to say that I especially appreciate what you say about inclusionism on your user page. I am very new here, and I take Wikipedians like you who want Wikipedia to be full of information as models. Keep up the good work. No offense intended by the edits. WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Advice about post-AfD
Hi, Jokestress-- You worked with me on the Barbara Warren page a while ago. I'm here to ask for your advice. An article I recently wrote was nominated for deletion by an editor for notability (the nom didn't initially mention any other reason and did say the article had a lot of references and seemed as if a lot of work had gone into it). Instead of placing a "Notability" tag on it, she nominated it for deletion and it went through the AfD process. During the process, I addressed the notability concern by finding more reliable articles (some editors said that some of the sources -- newspaper and magazine articles -- appeared weak). I have found stronger, reliable sources, cited them, reworked the article, and I believe the notability is there, plus it's a stronger article now. A few editors agreed, one quite strongly. But it was ultimately deleted. One editor, voted "Delete" within minutes of the AfD post (also, I thought it wasn't a vote, but, rather, a discussion). It was userfied by the admin, and I've improved on it (I found more articles where the subject was the only one in the article, which the nom requested). If you could take a look at it and give me your feedback, plus suggestions on a good way to proceed, it would be much appreciated. The thing is, because the non didn't seem receptive to improvements I'd made during the AfD, per her nomination notes. I've been paying attention to other AfDs and when improvements are made, the noms are satisfied and happy with the improvements being made. So, my sense is, it will be nominated a second time or someone who got on there with her with a pretty quick "Delete" will re-nominate it, despite the improvements. Your advice on how the best way to proceed would be wonderful. I asked User: Tone for his advice as well; you can click on to his talk page, under Cordelia Mendoza, and see what he said. Here's the AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cordelia Mendoza. And here's the draft I've been working on: User:AuthorAuthor/Cordelia Mendoza Thanks much! --AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your note. Appreciate it. I'm inclined, because of the nom's record of AfDs and reviews, of reposting the much-improved article, with reliable sources showing notability. Your take? --AuthorAuthor (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Two more reliable sources
For the Cordelia Mendoza rewrite/revision, I found two more reliable sources (one an obit, per your suggestion), where the subject is cited a couple of times, plus it's a strong reliable source & shows notability. Thanks for your advice. Much appreciated. --AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coccinelle-ep.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coccinelle-ep.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Coccinelle.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Coccinelle.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference desk/Miscellaneous mootch
To: User talk:AliceJMarkham, User talk:Bearcat, User talk:Fuhghettaboutit, User talk:Jehochman, Jokestress, and User talk:Pmanderson Hi folks,  While I know that Wikipedia is not a social networking site, I've read edits from each of you and figure that you might have something to contribute to my RD question Being private verses public?. If you can help, I'd greatly appreciate it, though even your attention here is appreciated as well. Thanks.205.189.194.208 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Paraphilia Commentary
Hi I ran into the use of the term, Paraphilia in reading an article involving adult spanking. This article was general and did not focus on the heterosexual format or the homosexual format. A "philia" as a term used in Psychology tends to involved many singular love of a fetish or some sort. I don't see why a Wikipedia article should narrow it in such a way. The word intent is to broaden and not narrow. The Budzone guy 20:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beadbud5000 (talk • contribs)

Requesting help with WP:SPS rewording
I have made the request to consider re wording of WP:SPS to have a more concise and simple definition. Could you please help with this?Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability

Thanks --Hfarmer (talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Someone has proposed a new guideline just for scientific articles.
This may interest you because the BBL articles can be construed as "science". The issues you have would be made even worse if when all is said and done this applies to all science related articles and not just those in the natural sciences. Basically any sources that were not published by the academic establishment would be out. Which would exclude many sources you would have liked to use even more strongly than what SPS does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences) --Hfarmer (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Dorian-corey.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Dorian-corey.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Adult sexual interest in children
I have nominated Adult sexual interest in children, 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/Adult sexual interest in children. 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. Herostratus (talk) 04:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Robert Schimmel
Since you are working on this article, maybe you can keep an eye on it? Heard some rumors that I would hate see included. Thanks. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Great - I'll keep an eye out, too. Thanks for the quick response. Clamshell Deathtrap (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Ello
I must say that you are pretty hot! You probably are the hottest chick on Wikipedia. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal
''You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia.'' -- 70.57.222.103 (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Soft sell


The article Soft sell has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * more suited to a dictionary.

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. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP
Would you mind going through that article carefully and making sure BLP is being followed to the letter? I've semi-protected it for, well, forever if another admin doesn't overrule me. I'd do it myself, but you likely know the sources and their reliability in the area better than I do- sports and history being more my areas! Courcelles 23:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the semi-protect ought to really help; I'll figure something else out if you don't want to pare it down. What a bunch of nonsense going on there.  The more I look at it, the more I think AFD botched the call two years ago. Courcelles 00:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Triple Lindy"
A page you created, Triple Lindy, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is vandalism.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Wiki Tome Talk 06:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I declined this speedy. The addition is clearly not vandalism, and Jokestress is an experienced editor, not a vandal. Regards,  T RANSPORTER M AN  ( TALK ) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "She's Built, She's Stacked"
A page you created, She's Built, She's Stacked, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it redirects from an implausible misspelling.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Wiki Tome Talk 06:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Annexation of Puerto Rico


The article Annexation of Puerto Rico has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not only has the disambiguation not been discussed, it is completely not needed as one of the two entries on the page reffers to an obscure sports play from a non-famous movie.

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.

Green and Bailey
Why did you conclude on your site that Green is a supporter of Bailey? The only evidence you cite is the letter about the use of the term "tomboy", in which Green "advises" Bailey and his colleagues not to use it (the Bailey paper he cites is also using the word in the title), although it's more of a pretext to vent about PC. Since Green is quite outspoken about his beliefs, I was curious to see if he had written anything about the autogynephilia controversy, but I wasn't able to find anything. Did you? Tijfo098 (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Green's most succinct show of support is Lighten Up, Ladies. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Volume 37, Number 3, 451-452, DOI: 10.1007/s10508-008-9323-3. Green labors under the delusion that a "supporter of sex reassignment surgery" must necessarily be an ally of trans people. Unfortunately, that attitude is common among past and present "experts" controlling Archives of Sexual Behavior. Green's work is always dripping with paternalistic condescension toward the objects of his study and toward those with whom he disagrees. "Lighten up, ladies" is therefore a double dose of Green's condescension. These guys hide their taxpayer-funded writing and research behind paywalls rather than allowing the public to examine what they are funding, so it can be hard to find. Jokestress (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree that Green gives moral support to Bailey as a fellow researcher when he decries the non-academic level of debate in that controversy, but Green doesn't endorse Bailey's views otherwise. Actually, I'm more inclined to read Green's commentary as the opposite view, because (1) he endorses Dreger's paper as NPOV (as we'd call it here), and (2) he makes an analogy with Kinsey's non-dichotomous scale, implying that Bailey is at least oversimplifying things. Academics often have to live with each other in committees and where not, so they seldom engage in knife fights in open; that's why peer reviews are anonymous. Anyway, it's your site, you're entitled to your opinion about Green. As for academics publishing behind paywalls, you want to read this and Hanlon's razor. Cheers, Tijfo098 (talk) 13:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Impressive
. I guess you, unlike Crusio, don't care about the DYK game. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't care about DYK and barnstars and all that. I want to add stuff that's missing (especially biographies) and improve stuff that's lacking. That said, I am always appreciative of a kind word, and I should say that your edits have been improving some intractable pages. Thanks for the note and effort. Jokestress (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for pedophilia article
Watching your talk page I saw the article on Adult sexual interest in children got deleted. If you still have the material, which I did not see, you could probably reuse some of that for a "intensity and specificity" section in the pedophilia article; that discussion appears completely missing from there right now, but that's how it's framed in most texts on pedophilia, so it should be acceptable to the hardcore editors there, although I'm not holding my breath on that. Good luck, Tijfo098 (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Glen Gabbard page
Thank you for your information about editing my page.

I don't see any tildes on my computer, so I'm signing my name.

Best, Glen Gabbard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenowensgabbard (talk • contribs) 12:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Today sponge


The article Today sponge has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Essentially the same content contained in Contraceptive sponge

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. jsfouche &#9789;&#9790;   talk  07:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Today Sponge
The rewritten article is much, much better. The version that was deleted was largely a copyvio from different pages around the web, and mostly from pdfs from the company's website. If you ever want old versions restored, to your user space even, then just ask. Just assume a little good faith rather than your snarky edits labeling me a deletionist. Kind regards. --Stephen 22:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cooks Source infringement controversy
Hello! Your submission of Cooks Source infringement controversy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! cmadler (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Cook's Source listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cook&. Since you had some involvement with the Cook's Source redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Women's Hospital
Dohertyteresa (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Dohertyteresa The text on AIM25 comes from a catalogue I am responsible for at The Women's Library, London; The data has already been copied to Aim25 and Archives Hub and A2A as part of work we are doing to disseminate our collections. I'm piloting some work on Wiki in response to GLAM Wiki - to promote some of the collections we hold and put some more of our info into the public domain - i.e. checking links, creating links between articles, creating initial content for articles etc. Hopefully will be useful, will see how it goes...

DYK for Cooks Source infringement controversy
Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Your userpage
I've placed semi-protection on your userpage for a spat of vandalism. Let me know if you'd rather leave it open. Courcelles 06:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
I've reported Special:Contributions/98.149.114.34 to ANI. You were engaged in discussion with this user at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen, so I thought I should notify you of this. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Clement Attlee
Hi there. I am intrigued, and no criticism whatsoever is intended: why did we need the Clement Richard Atlee redirect? As far as I can see nothing links there and I don't think that you've had to change something that pointed there, though of course I may be wrong. Do please enlighten me. As I say, this is genuinely not a disguised complaint - I honestly just don't get it and would love to understand your reasoning. Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Gosh - that's what I call thorough! Thanks very much for the explanation ... now all I need to do it to figure out what that list actually is - I'll plan to send you a postcard outlining my progress in, say, June! Thanks again and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello again. I'm sorry to be a nuisance, but do you mind if I unlink the CRA spelling in my first paragraph above, please? I do a regular search for "what links here" redirects to the real target article (yes, I have a sad obsession with getting him spelt right!) and my own stupid message is now irritatingly showing up in my search and subtly but dangerously raising my blood pressure ... I would just take out the link now but I know that editing on others' Talk pages - even editing one's own contributions - is not always welcome! Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm such an idiot sometimes that I even surprise myself. Adding "&namespace=0" to my standard Attlee search has sorted the problem out anyway. I am pretty sure that I only need to worry about his spelling in article space. Sorry to bother you! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Removed per request. Jokestress (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm so sorry to take up your time with my babblings! Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Magnolia Shorty for deletion
The article Magnolia Shorty is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Magnolia Shorty 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. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Happy to speak up in favor of keeping this article, and it was a pleasure to learn a bit about you on your user page and your website. I wish you well. Cullen328 (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words, and for voting to keep the article. The excesses of deletionism on the project have been troubling to me for several years now. Jokestress (talk) 17:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)