User talk:NickW557/Archive 5

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Help
NNick I wannna delete a Page REAALLLLLLLLYLYLYY Bad how do i Do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Priscy4u (talk • contribs) 01:52, 15 May 2008
 * Replied on user's talk page. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

My edits for MCR being reverted
I'm just trying to tell people the truth based on factual statistics published in Time Magazine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.239.103 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 15 May 2008
 * Please excuse me if I have a hard time believing that Time Magazine published such facts. If you have factual information to add to the article it needs to be cited. Otherwise, you should discuss such additions on the article's talk page. In the meantime, adding unsourced information of the type you did is considered vandalism. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know...
If someone removes the speedy tag from a page, but leaves or puts a hangon tag anywhere on the page, it is not a problem. If they remove all the tags, just readd them to the page. Just wanted to let you know because I did the same thing for a while before someone told me. Regards. Thingg &#8853; &#8855; 01:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I know its not a big problem, because the tag still categorizes it in the speedy deletion category, but by removing the original deletion tag it removes the article from the specialized speedy deletion category for that specific criteria. Again it's not a big problem, but I don't think its a bad thing to make sure the tags remain properly placed so the speedy deletion is properly categorized. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 23:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback may be removed at any time.

Happy Birthday
Idontknow 610 TM 10:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry about messing up the page, and thanks for reverting it. I'm still learning how to cite sources, and I messed something up(I'm not sure what yet). I'll make sure it doesn't happen again, but I just wanted to thank you for fixing the page for me. =) SlayerBloodySlayer (talk) 06:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate for your help!
Thank you very much for your help (you moved my sandbox to the appropriate location). Great job!

Regards,

Dreamliner888 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Created Article
Nick, I appreciate you getting back to me. I'm new to the Wiki article creation, and started my first article. It was in regards to the CCPS financial certification. I was rather surprised that an article did not exist on it, as many financial designations have their own article. It was marked for speedy deletion as advertising, unclear to me, and I would like to avoid that in a future rewrite. Please advise? Sincere thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slamb2002 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on User talk:Slamb2002. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Helpme
Hello, sir. Regarding this edit, you said I need to create an account in order to create a template. Unfortunately, I can't, because at the end of usage I have to tag it as a sockpuppet, and I've heard all of a sockpuppet's contributions will be reverted.--79.73.63.159 (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry
is there another site we can post our article on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alk95 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

List of people who died before the age of 30
It appears obvious now that the page List of people who died before the age of 30 is headed to deletion. I support its deletion myself. But this has given me an idea. Do you think it would make sense to have a set of categories called "Age x deaths," all in a parent category called "Deaths by age?" That seems like a better idea. This way, there would be no worry where to draw the line as to what age is "significant" as an age of death, and all ages people live to can possibly be included. There would be no need for one person to create all these categories in one day - they could be built gradually over time. We already have categories like 1949 deaths. Why can't we do the same with age? I would like some input. Sebwite (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for watching out for my talk page, I haven't been logged in in awhile and you caught the vandalism before I even knew about it! Professor Chaos (talk) 05:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast
I accidentally created BarryLeiba instead of "Barry Leiba" but had trouble fixing it because you were so quick to beat me to the punch. Thanks.... -- nsb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsbnsb (talk • contribs) 02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Untitled
hi jw why you wanted my page deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegirlyouwishyouknew (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 November 2008

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Rahul Raj encounter
I have made certain modification in the article Rahul Raj encounter, kindly comment - Articles_for_deletion/Rahul_Raj. Manoj nav (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

St Mungo's
Tracked it down - it is a reworking of an existing school article. Details at AfD. Peridon (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

why redirect
hi, i know you redirected the section to the article, but you should have left a post at my talk page, according to the wikipedia guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohanpyare7 (talk • contribs) 04:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

reply: why redirect
i understand what you say, and i agree with you, as you said, per the wikipedia rule not:lyrics. I will try to merge the information i planned for this article, into the actual kishore kumar article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohanpyare7 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mevish1
Can you please respond to my comment there? - Mgm|(talk) 11:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ken Doane
You said I vandalized the Ken Doane page but I have never even looked at that page. Please remove this from my profile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.63.47 (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)  §hepBot  ( Disable )  20:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 23:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Delivered at 04:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot  ( Disable ) 

Wikipedia Signpost, January 31, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 21:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism
But...don't I even get the pleasure of seeing what's being flung at me? Lol. Fast work, there. Piano non troppo (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha sorry about that :-) --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

User talk:64.74.153.18
Looks like the IP hopped around a bit while I had to step out for a bit. I blocked the two other IPs that were blanking the page, under the pretense that it's the same user. Hopefully, that will be it. — TKD:: Talk  07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :-) --Nick—Contact/Contribs 07:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 16, 2009


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 07:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; February 23, 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:


 * Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
 * An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
 * News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
 * Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
 * Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
 * Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 2 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:


 * Books extension enabled
 * News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost &mdash; 9 March 2009
This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 10, which includes these articles:


 * News and notes: Commons, conferences, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Politics, more politics, and more
 * Dispatches: 100 Featured sounds milestone
 * Wikiproject report: WikiProject Christianity
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 00:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

web speed dating
Hi,

Sorry. This was my first entry but have been a long time user of Wikipedia and love it. I admit I was trying a couple of things and linked to a test page to see how it worked. I was a little stunned at the speed of the notice of it.

I had planned to come back today and revise this to a more appropriate entry. I think I have done a revision in the spirit of the guidelines and would be happy to alter this further. I intend to pursue more source material and think there is a lot to be said about what this means both socially and technically as a part of the overall evolution and integration of the web. Please let me know if this is still lacking for a starting point or if something else needs to be changed. Again, I apologize for the clumsy nature of my introduction to being a contributor. I should have known better.

I attempted to log this in the discussion itself, but didn't want to stumble again. Hope this is a good approach.

Thanks,

Madkin (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick...

 * Original title before shortened: "Hi Nick, Thanks for the info. I did try to add to the talk discussion the below, but for all my efforts it shows as on the link attached." --Nick—Contact/Contribs 04:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_speed_dating

A little confused and I tried seemingly every option to get in the discussion AfD debate, but just couldn't seem to get it and I have to run off. I will try again later, but am doing what I can. I appreciate you response.

I did find the edit button on the right and re-responded in the discussion itself. As I say, I think this topic will really pivot beyond online dating. There are quite a few studies around this I would like to research and reference.

Sorry for the clumsy first step and I appreciate your help. Thanks,

Madkin (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC) mk

Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009  Unsubscribe &middot; Single-page &middot; Full edition &raquo;  — 16 March 2009


 * News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Delivered by §hepBot  ( Disable )  at 23:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 23 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
 * Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
 * News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 30 March 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
 * Special report: Community weighs license update
 * News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops tv CSD
Just so you know, I declined your request for speedy deletion on Oops tv as A1. There was plenty of context to tell what the article was about. It had the name of the show, who starred in it, and even what channel it was on. I did, however, create a redirect to the comedian Justin Lee Collins.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed. Thanks for the help :-). --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What should I do to keep article on Wikipedia?
With references and citations will I be able to keep article on Wikipedia? FreemanDream (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied on User talk:FreemanDream. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 6 April 2009 ==


 * Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
 * News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
 * Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject China
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 13 April 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote begins
 * News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
 * Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost : 20 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of The Wikipedia Revolution
 * Wikipedia by numbers: Wikipedia's coverage and conflicts quantified
 * News and notes: New program officer, survey results, and more
 * Dispatches: Valued pictures
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Film
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 18:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 27 April 2009 ==


 * Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
 * News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 11 May 2009 ==


 * News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
 * Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Untitled
HELLO NICK I dont know if I am leaving a message in the proper space. I am writing on behalf of soci3430 our newly made wiki entry entitled "Approaches to anti-oppression" I just wanted to inform you that I was not aware that posting it automatically is risky and I am working on FINALIZING the entry by the end of the weekend. We are doing this as a component of a group project in our university class, and hopefully we can stick to the guidelines. Our entry is due may 20th and if you intend on deleting it is there any way it can be left up for a few extra remaining days after the 20th? In the meantime please do give me suggestions on how to improve the entry according to wikipedia standards 21:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC) USER SOCI 3430 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SOCI3430 (talk • contribs)
 * I have created a page to discuss the deletion of your article. Please address your comments to Articles for deletion/Approaches to anti-oppression. Thanks! :) --Nick—Contact/Contribs 19:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nick, I have received your messages and reasoning for deletion. I was wondering if and when the article will supposedly be deleted. Also, because it is a part of my university project, if it IS deleted is there a way that my professor can mark my entry as 'nonpublished'? I am growing concern over all the hours I have spent trying to learn the wikipedia style of formatting, yet if it gets deleted all of my contributed work and time is erased and not visible? Please help me. SOCI3430 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 18 May 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Writers needed
 * Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
 * Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
 * News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Political Simpleton
I have to say that I am very disappointed by the lack of objectivity and "professionalism" of the people that are allowed to determine content on this site. In particular, I want to point out someguy and orangemike. Their standards for deletion were not in line with Wiki's own guidelines and actually seemed to veer into the terriotry of being subjective and nasty. Orangemike, in particular, seemed to have it out for Ray for no objective reason whatsoever. Ray did not hide his identity and orangemike's need for a "a-ha, caught you moment" was inappropriate and immature. An article's creator who also happens to have an interest in the subject has every right to argue for the article's inclusion and is no less subjective than someguy and orangemike were in their judgment and comments. Ray and I madse some very valid comments/ arguments and they were not refuted/ responded to by nearly all who chose to comment. If the ILIKEIT charge was going to be thrown, I would argue that an equally strong IDONTLIKEIT for no real reason at all could be leveled against most who opted for deletion.

Are you aware that there are "editors" who shake down article writers in order to keep the article from being deleted? Yet somehow their opinion is seen as more objective and more valid than the article contributor?

If Wiki wants to be known for being a valid resource, then it need to be policed by and represented by those who take the responsibility seriously and act professionally, not those who use it as an opportunity to be a cyberbully and as some kind of power trip.

For shame! An encyclopedia or dictionary does not choose to include a word or reference just because they don't like it and don't want it in their personal fiefdom. I expected better... By the way, I'm Laura Bramble, who writes for The Political Simpleton, in case anyone wants to accuse me of hiding my affiliation to the site...Laurabramble (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if you feel that the deletion process was unfair or unprofessional in any way. Personally, however, I do not think that is the case.  The process by which the article was nominated for deletion, and was discussed, and was eventually deleted, followed our deletion policy which has been designed to be as fair and effective as possible. I merely created the discussion page and requested that the article be discussed for deletion. At that point, anyone in the Wikipedia community (as well as unregistered users), had the opportunity to comment on the discussion page, not just certain people that "are allowed to determine content on the site."  Those commenting seemed to feel that the article did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines for websites, not because the website isn't popular, but because the website isn't covered in reliable, third-party sources that can be used to objectively build and article.
 * Regarding Orangemike's wanting for the articles creator to admit that he is the founder of the website in question, that is completely valid for a deletion discussion, in my opinion. Wikipedia has a Conflict of Interest guideline that should be followed in deletion discussions.  While I agree that the founder of the website would obviously have an opinion in deleting the article, it is exactly that which creates the conflict of interest that the closing administrator may want to keep in mind when deciding the validity and objectivity of the arguments.
 * Finally, the closing administrator that reviewed the discussion and decided to delete the article weighed all the arguments presented for and against deletion against relevant policy and decided that the consensus was to delete the article. In this way, I do not see how the process lacked objectivity.  I am sorry if you feel that way, and I hope this will not discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 25 May 2009 ==


 * License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
 * News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
 * Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
 * WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC) == Wikipedia Signpost <span style="color:#666; font-variant: small-caps; font-size:80%; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">: 1 June 2009 ==


 * From the editor: Browsing the archives
 * Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
 * Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
 * News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
 * Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please disregard this taltback, I thought you were the one who deleted the redirect "User:Dingdong65/Written On Her"--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)