User talk:Oakshade/Archive 4

Lisa Donovan
You claim there is no such thing as SPAMing an image, but if you would have checked the history you would see the user tried repeatedly to upload it from non licensed sites and other tactics, further the image it self says the license is in doubt. I am also an inclusionist, if you will. However, I don't think people should abuse Wikipedia with copyrighted images licensed wrong. Seem fair? Nesnad (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Earlier you commented the following:

"Keep - Towns and villages are inherently notable regardless of size. I don't see why this town of over 1,500 would be an exception. The nom has only given reasons for article expansion, not deletion. The article could simply read "Apoldu de Jos sucks" and I'd still vote "keep" (and obviously rewrite). The Romanian WP article is a good place to start to find more content.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)"

If I wanted to add more information to the English version, what would you recommend I use as the translator to ensure the best possible accuracy?  T24G  17:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you happen to be proficient at Romanian to ensure grammatical accuracy, sure. I put a translation/expansion tag in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User Niteshift36's response to personal attack notice on his talk page
Note: These are Niteshift36's responses to notifications of violations of WP:CIVIL on his talk page. The full exchange is here (an archived version is linked because it seems this user deletes anything that appears unflattering to them).--Oakshade (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I can erase anything I want from my talk page and routinely erase trivial junk like your posting, whether it is "unflattering", neutral or even complimentary. The truth here is that most things on my talk page get removed. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not a personal attack. You made a false claim. I said I can see only 2 reasons for the false claim and left it to you to tell me which one it was. If there is a third possible reason, I'm sure you'll present it. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite clearly stated the policy correctly. It was very clear that I said the multiple sources were preferred. Nowhere did I say they were mandatory. Therefore, your accusation was false. I believe your complaint is baseless and just whining. I am not angry about the AfD. Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that you believe that an AfD about some non-notable "artist" is important enough for me to get angry over shows that you don't. If I am bothered by anything, it is that I believe GNG is being misapplied. And there was no poor behavior in the AfD to excuse. I am done discussing this with you and any posts to my talk page about the topic will be immediately deleted unread. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Oakshade! 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 ensure 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) 04:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Caroline Cellier -

Question
Hello! Concerning your remark here - what should I do next time I see such a stub (non-encyclopedic style, though the subject is notable) if I don't have enough sources or time to improve it? Thanks in advance. --Microcell (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As suggested, do a google maps search for the village. That only takes a few seconds.  If you've determined the topic is notable but you're not interested in improving the article yourself, place an improvement tag on the article.  But honestly, reducing the article to a decent stub doesn't take much longer than creating an AfD.  It took me about 5 minutes to delete the non-encyclopedic content and replace it with an okay stub. --Oakshade (talk) 23:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
kelapstick (talk) 01:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain
You weren't even involved in that AfD so I'm not even sure what your interest is now. With all due respect, I feel no need to explain my actions to you. They violate no policy. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

2009–10_Toyota_vehicle_recalls
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --Oakshade Astrakerie (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't work that way, Astrakerie. As you are a new user, you need to understand you can't revert someone's edit three times, as what you did.  Placing a 3RR tag back on my talk page after I placed one on yours is silly game playing.--Oakshade (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination)
Hi, Oakshade. Because you participated in Deletion review/Log/2010 February 7, you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Electric Retard (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mislabeled
There is no "disruptive carpet tagging" when a lot of those facts weren't sourced. Great, you found a college newspaper to support some of them, but calling it disprutive is just you assumption of bad faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (From previously written text) Carpet-bombing with tags is seldom a good-faith effort and usually represents someone's grudge, gripe, mission or burr of the moment. Articles that some people don't like frequently suffer from overcite when every sentence sports a reference tag or two. That doesn't help readablity and a number of them get combed out each time someone does the thankless task of boiling-down an article.--Oakshade (talk) 22:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Spin it how you want. The facts weren't there. And if you look at the PDF version of the small publication of the communications dept of the University of Vermont (not the wider circulation student paper, this one is just from the coummunications dept.), you'll see it says The View on the left, then "From the University of Vermont" at the very top. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Afd
I just snow-kept the AfD while also replying to our discussion. I just realized that I effectively got the last word in and prevented you from replying. If you want to unclose it temporarily just to finish our discussion feel free, or you can reply to me here instead.  Equazcion ( talk ) 17:21, 6 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Chwele
Nice job. I think you saved it. Dloh cierekim  05:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Interviews
I've started a thread at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) you may be interested in. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 06:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

the new york international independent film and video festival
I did not mean to blank entire section I WAS ONLY TRYING TO REMOVE COMMENTS THAT HAVE NO PUBLISHED SOURCES ANY LONGER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinn (talk • contribs) 04:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "NO PUBLISHED SOURCES ANY LONGER." If a source was published, it stays published forever.  You in fact removed content, an entire section in your case, that had published sources.--Oakshade (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If their is no published source it does not belong on the page. That is the whole reason of having a published source.(user allin)11 march 20010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allinn (talk • contribs) 05:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is. Just because there's no long a hyperlink to it does not mean it magically never existed. --Oakshade (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

satna junction
Hi..if you are a railfan, do join my youtube channel named Kawanzeir, Just search SHIPRA EXPRESS - ANAS KHAN and watch all my links..do send me email anask14@gmail.com, I m the one who created pages like Satna Junction, hats off to make it standard..

Ventura Freeway discussion you might want to get in on
Hello! You might want to be aware of/or take part in the discussion at Talk:California State Route 134. It's about whether to eliminate the article about the Ventura Freeway by merging it into the two numbered highways (U.S. 101 and state route 34) that make it up.

Here's the background: The members of WikiProject U.S. Roads seem to have it as one of their rules that anything related to a numbered route has to be merged into the article about the numbered route. On March 27 one of them reduced the Ventura Freeway article (14,000 bytes) to a disambiguation page referencing highways 101 and 34, with the editorial comment "article not needed". You reverted that change, saying "Notable topic. You need to gain consensus for such a major more." The original editor then AfD'ed the page, see Articles for deletion/Ventura Freeway. That generated lively discussion, but when it appeared the consensus was moving toward "keep" the nominator withdrew the nomination, giving as the reason "This is something that needs to be discussed across the board; I don't think this is the place to do it though." Now someone has re-started the discussion on the talk page of the State Route 134 article and they are all talking about a delete-and-merge again. I know I'm supposed to assume good faith but I find it hard in this case; I feel like they moved the discussion to an obscure talk page precisely so they could make a decision among themselves without wide input from the Wikipedia community.

Since you were involved in this issue before, and took part in the AfD discussion, I thought you might want to have some input. --MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mauna Kea Beach Hotel
Did you really mean to put the peacock terms back in? Did you actually follow the added sources and find them not as reliable and verifiable as the ones you put back in? Your edits do not seem constructive, unless you have proof that your removal of information was needed. Discussing opinions first before reverting in five minutes would show more respect for fellow editors. W Nowicki (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree about that "finest white sand beach" sentence, so I removed it. The other bits, like being recognized for its architecture, is sourced.

Thank you. Of course it is harder to verify sources now that the accessable ones were removed. The remaining questionable word is "renowed". Source #1 lists only the architect, not the firm. Source #2 points to an IP address that does not respond. Looks like an old google search result? That is the one you changed from pointing to the actual article, which does work: here to a non-working link. Source #3 is an airline magazine that calls the firm "noted", but also has this to say about the survey: "A cynic might argue that the whole idea is nothing but architecture's answer to American Idol." But that is mostly amusing, although points out the award is not for architectural merit but for popularity by 1800 random Americans. Source #4 is a AAA magazine article without a link given, but was easily to find here. This is even more amusing that it says "Rockefeller designed the Mauna Kea..." (he might have influenced the design, but my guess is the greenwashing of the design is a recent phenomenon). Source #5 is the one with the pay link. Perhaps the source was there at the time, but a quick search found this article from a more local paper that is even more up to date on the re-opening. Also questionable is the addition of the "Special Preview website" it sounds like was advertising for the re-opening, it redirects to a site trying to sell me the domain for $2,495. Does not seem to improve the article at all. Links should provide information on the subject, not try to make a sale.

Let me offer a compromise to avoid going to dispute resolution: I will develop an article on the bay standing alone (I now have published Richard Smart (actor) which covers the landowner), if you undo the "Special Preview" site and add the acessable links mentioned above. Your patience is appreciated. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry you took this personally; it was not intended that way. I was only adressing the removal of content from the article and replacing it with a commercial link and re-inserting the peacock words. I think the edit history will show who did what. I appologize for citing the wrong rule. W Nowicki (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note
You are receiving this note because of your participation in Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations, which is now being revisited at Articles for deletion/Iceland–Mexico relations (2nd nomination). –xeno talk  17:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The Room
Please remember that a vital part of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle is discussion. Edit summaries are generally not considered sufficient for this -- take it to the talk page, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)
 * That's exactly where it was taken in greater detail, as well as the user's talk page.--Oakshade (talk) 20:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * An article such as List of films considered the worst will always be subject to differences of opinion. However, all you have done on my talk page is make personal attacks, even after I have asked you to refrain from doing so. As noted above, it is proper Wikipedia etiquette to discuss an edit conflict on the talk page of the article, in order to come to a consensus. Instead, you have continually reverted things to your POV, and used edit summaries for your justifications, in order to avoid discussion. I don't expect you to agree with me, but please do not make any more hostile accusations on MY talk page, because it is not constructive to the Wikipedia community. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my POV, but based on reliable sources. You version had absolutely nothing to do with reliable sources and completely your POV.  When you are any user insists on providing content based on personal opinion and not reliable sources, you will be reverted.  Discussion was already taking place and you were the only user insisting on the factually inaccurate version.  And per the comment above which was about the inclusion of The Room in this article, you were completely ignoring reliable sources like The Times ("Sources just don't meet the criteria" was your comment when you deleted content sourced by The Times).  If you'd like to change the policy to not base content on reliable sources, you need to make your case in the policy's talk page.  --Oakshade (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ursula Werner
Thank you for creating  the article Ursula Werner. You might  find that  articles like these have an original entry  in  the subject's native language Wikipedia - especially  in  French, German, Italian, and Spanish. Do check  first, and If  so, don't  hesitate to  ask  for a translation HERE. keep up the good work! --Kudpung (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)--Kudpung (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kudpung! I also created the Barbara Auer article yesterday and somebody actually speedy deleted it!  I recreated it and I don't think they'll try again.  But the article could use expansion.  I'll see what I can do.--Oakshade (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions of bad faith and lack of civility
Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro). Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia.

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Line 1 (Rio de Janeiro). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''I don't think I did anything to deserve the comments you made at this AfD. I have no problem with being wrong or being told that I've made a mistake, but your accusations of bad faith were entirely inappropriate, unfounded, unnecessarily inflammatory, and counterproductive. In the future, please make an attempt to be more civil.''  Snotty Wong  chat 04:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You call me a "Raging Dick" and say I'm uncivil? --Oakshade (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)



Erpert (let's talk about it) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Kaba Gandhi No Delo
Thanks a lot for supporting my article. I knew this facts for sure as I was born and raised in that city. I'm new to wiki article's and that might have led to this confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennstate4ever (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Phursatar
Can you take a look at the new sources in the article and AfD? cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WP Trains in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Trains for a Signpost article to be published this month. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Re your comment at Articles for deletion/Funtasy Island
Based on the co-ordinates in the above article and the image of the eco-park uploaded by the user who created the article I have looked at a satellite image captured this year on google earth and the park almost certainly doesn't exist. Just thought I'd let you know in case this alters your opinion in the deletion discussion. --  role player 13:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Jerry Brown
Thanks for the low down on the IP editor. I suspected ulterior motives in that and many other editions to the edits. There didn't seem to be a tact that made sense, just a poorer more negative sounding sense of the words. I've also seen other people try to force an awful picture of him into the primary position. I understand NPOV and have been watching that article for long before he declared an interest in the election because I inserted comments (since deleted) about the movie Americathon being about Brown. When you mess in a political article, you get hit from all directions. Trackinfo (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davis & Shirtliff
Hi Oakshade. Please keep your comment  to  ones about  the article and not  about  the volunteers who  edit  the Wikipdia and try  to  keep  it  in  line with  policy  in  good faith. (This is a Wikipedia policy). Thanks. --Kudpung (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My comment is 100% about the article. --Oakshade (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cited "New" not cited "Web"
My apolgies. The reference format was not citing the web. It cited the news organization and should have enough information. The missing url is not out of place.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Prop 13 mention from references
OK, I hope this works for you. I tried the minimum; When Proposition 13 passed, he heavily cut state spending and much of the $5 billion surplus was used to meet the proposition's requirements and help offset the revenue losses which made cities, counties and schools more dependent to the state. --Amadscientist (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objection.--Oakshade (talk) 14:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Adopting ideas
Hey, Oakshade. I've seen (not literally) you around the Wikipedia community, for example at AfD talks and your articles. And I see that your user page is similar to mine listing your accomplishements. I acknowledge that and suggest adopting my idea to graphically organize it: My user page. Whenaxis (talk) 11:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Off2riorob's Altering other editors comments on talk pages
Note: This discussion began on User:Off2riorob's talk page. For unknown reasons, he has chosen to delete this discussion there and moved it here. --Oakshade (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like such crap on my talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to delele anything that's unflattering, embarrassing or outright humiliating from your talk page, that's allowed (I see you delete from your talk page quite a lot.). It has to be noted here.--Oakshade (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your removal of images on Talk:Jerry Brown, per WP:TALK, you are not allowed to alter other editors' edits unless there is a WP:BLP issue. Please stop violating our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your issue is, there is no reason to have all those pics there at all. You like them do you? They don't belong there at all. One of the pics there was an awful picture with no clear chance of ever getting into the article, users post such negative pics on the talkpage because they know they can't get them into the article. I will watch your talkpage for replies, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)



removed this one .. remove negative portrayal of a living person with no chance of ever getting in the article)Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And I will also add, regarding your comment "Discussion is over", in fact you are in an edit war regarding the photo in the article. Not only discussion is not over, but you are in that discussion.

Regarding this comment you left on my talk page:
 * "I don't know what your issue is, there is no reason to have all those pics there at all. You like them do you? They don't belong there at all. One of the pics there was an awful picture with no clear chance of ever getting into the article, users post such negative pics on the talkpage because they know they can't get them into the article. I will watch your talkpage for replies, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)"
 * It doesn't matter that you believe there is no reason to have the images there. You and other editors are currently discussing them.  That's what a talk page is for, to discuss the content or possible content of the articles including images. --Oakshade (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This picture that I have posted here for you, needs no discussion at all, it is a negative pic and makes the subject look angry, it will never be added to the article so there is nothing to discuss. The picture issue is so clear there is actually only one option and that option is in the infobox. Off2riorob (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Your readding the awful pic with this totally mistaken comment there is no WP:BLP issue with a legal photo. - WP:BLP is not, its legal so its ok or its cited so its ok. Its an awful addition indeed from a user with ten thousand edits I find your position disappointing indeed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like some the photos either. But some other editors do.  That's why it's being discussed.  You can't eliminate discussion.  --Oakshade (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The picture I have posted here is unworthy of any discussion, it will never be allowed into the article and as such should not be on the talkpage either. Thanks, I will watchlist and review edit history and see what the issue is. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "unworthy of discussion"??? You are not God. Wikipedia is not censored. If you don't like a topic or image of discussion, that's fine. But you have no authority to ban discussion.--Oakshade (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, unworthy of discussion, there is nothing to discuss at all, the pic is close to attacking and never had or will have any chance of insertion in the article, so, nothing to discuss at all. Please don't add links to wiki is not censored as actually it is editorial NPOV BLP editors censor all sort of partisan rubbish. Also please don't bring god into such a pitiful issue. As for authority, I am responsible for my additions and removals and you are responsible for yours, so enjoy. Off2riorob (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are pretending to be God by banning discussion. There is no discussion of content that is "unworthy of discussion."  In fact, other editors felt otherwise and discussed it.  You can't change that.  Sorry, but you're not God.--Oakshade (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ooops
Yes, I guess I either udid the first time after someone else did or need better glasses, because you are right. I was removing the information I THOUGHJT I was putting back.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No prob. I've done that too. --Oakshade (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Geo-stubs
I actually ran into this situation today. How should I go about starting a community discussion on the policy? thanks-- Talk ToMe cintel ati 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow long standing consensus. It is a good standard.  Otherwise Wikipedia editors will be wasting countless hours/days/months/years arguing over the "notability" of the tens of thousands of settlements around the world when our (non-paid) efforts are bettered served to creating new articles and improving existing ones. --Oakshade (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Janice Felty


A tag has been placed on Janice Felty requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. Kudpung (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Randi Coy
Gigs (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

About BMTC routes
Hello, Yes I did say that we could merge and have one single article on the routes of the transport company (BMTC). But after seeing the users comments on the AfD of List of AC buses, even I did feel that mentioning routes about a transport company cannot be encyclopedic (correct me if I am wrong). I do not see a list of all the routes of any other road transport in wikipedia. I believe just an article about BMTC would be sufficient and we could provide an external link to the list of routes that it operates. I do not think that anybody would search wikipedia to know the routes of BMTC, they would rather search btis.com or BMTC's website itself. Abhishek191288 (talk) 06:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "I do not see a list of all the routes of any other road transport in wikipedia"
 * List of King County Metro bus routes
 * List of Miami Metrobus routes
 * List of San Francisco Municipal Railway lines
 * List of Chicago Transit Authority bus routes


 * Now you do.--Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I see that. Is it possible to remove the nomination then? I guess I've acted a little too early and immature on this issue. I should've taken some advice first. But I hope you wouldn't consider me unconstructive for that. Abhishek191288 (talk) 12:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can withdraw the nomination as there are no "delete" votes. See WP:NADC. --Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. I read that. But how do I withdraw my nomination? Do I just delete the AfD tag from the articles? Abhishek191288 (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a long time since I closed one so I don't know off hand. Here is a good place to start. ->WP:DPR. --Oakshade (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

J Milburn's Harassment
Note, despite warnings, J Milburn is constantly harassing me. Most of the pointless dialogue is in history. --Oakshade (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The Stunners (group)
I have no idea how you think a digital-only EP, an album with inexact release date that may not even see the light of day and a non-charting single constitute WP:BAND #5. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's how albums aimed at the teen market are becoming generally released these day, digitally. WP:BAND #5 isn't about charting, it's about releases from major record labels, which this band has been released by. Two major labels actually.--Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

File:JohnCBogle.jpeg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:JohnCBogle.jpeg, 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. J Milburn (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Going to Extremes (book)


The article Going to Extremes (book) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No assertion of notability at all let alone anything satisfying WP:BOOK

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. Zachlipton (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Jared Lee Loughner
We cannot break the page for hundreds of visitors who do not care about Wikipedia's internal processes just because there is a DRV. You can either let it redirect and wait for the DRV to end, or restore the article itself and put the notice on that. You cannot have it both redirect and have the notice. Prodego talk  04:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Got it.--Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

G Giffords
Sorry to have been rude to you on the talk page of this article. It was uncalled for and your comment was in good faith. I have retracted my comment, I was attempting to investigate the detail of the charges and I got a bit upset, please excuse me. - Off2riorob (talk) 13:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's okay. Appreciate the comments here. --Oakshade (talk) 18:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Heading
I changed a section heading from 'attempted assassination' to 'Shooting incident' based on the text within the article, particularly the lead, which implies that this may be disputed. The body text will need to be changed accordingly to be consistent, if you insist on your wording. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The wording describes in detail of what is defined as an attempted assassination ("to murder (a person, esp a public or political figure), usually by a surprise attack" or "To murder (a prominent person) by surprise attack, as for political reasons." as two definition examples). Even the charges are officially "attempting to assassinate a member of Congress."  I'm not alone on this one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Dan Charnas


A tag has been placed on Dan Charnas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Travelbird (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

University of Toronto is not on Morningside Avenue
I actually live in Toronto, I have several Toronto maps, and I have visited the Scarborough Campus of U of T. It has no connection to Morningside Road. It is on Military Trail, and at best would warrant mentioning on Ellesmere Road. It has nothing to do with Morningside Avenue. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the mailing address. The fact is Morningside forms the western boundary of the U. of T. campus. --Oakshade (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And how is that noteworthy? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion that certain content that's factual is not "noteworthy" is noted. But it's in fact an accurate description of of the route.  --Oakshade (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It's undue weight and original research. The building isn't on Morningside, it isn't accessed from Morningside, so it has no place in the article on Morningside. Do you have property maps (or any source at all) to show that the property line reaches the Morningside easement? Or is it original research? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  05:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. --Oakshade (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * here is an article on the reliability of Google Maps. If they can't get a national boarder right, what makes you think they have a property line? Toporama is a reliable source -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  τ ¢  15:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Finding a specific case where two Central American governments can't get their own border right is not indication that the property of a university in Canada is "assumed by the mapmakers". Toporama, as the name implies is a topographical map, not a property ownership one.  Try again. --Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually its a Geographic Information Service (GIS). One of the layers is property assessment and shows all the lot boundaries. The goverment of Canada is far more reliable tan Google Maps, or would you argue the contrary? -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  16:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Eisenman Synagogue
Hello. There is an independence issue with this book, as it was written by Els Bendheim, which is the daughter of the Synagogue's founder as you can deduce from the article of Eisenman Synagogue. But whatever. Let Wikipedia write about every synagogue in the world... Lippotaf (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Response, as from others, is in the AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 06:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Union Station
Hello, I've begun a discussion at Talk:Union Station (Los Angeles). Feel free to comment. Cheers! --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 17:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Greg Sestero Page
I understand why you want to remove the part of him being French, but per his resume (which is referenced) he is of French and American descent with dual citizenship. (I'm also in touch with Greg and have confirmed that with him.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbyandbeans (talk • contribs) 14:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for that is Wikipedia's content should be decided by secondary sources. That resume is primary and it seems there is original research occurring.  It is the standard practice will all articles that we avoid that. --Oakshade (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What I would suggest is that, if you have issues with the material referenced, you state that specifically. You said, "traveling to France for a year doesn't make you French."  I didn't (and wouldn't) state that he was of French and American descent, has dual citizenship, and spoke both French and English based on his travels (I actually find that implication insulting).  I based those statements on his own published resume and included that reference.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I did "state that specifically." You can't base content on a primary source like the topic's self-published resume.--Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Friday (Rebecca Black song)
Thanks for the article Victuallers (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

An agenda?
Re your veilled accusation of "an agenda". (Yes, your "question" is insinuating that there is one.) No agenda whatso ever, just some common sense. Some co-ed, making a stupid youtube video that got the media's attention for a few days is hardly a significant even in the nearly 100 years of the school. Then here comes Oakshade, who has never shown an interest in the article, to oppose what I said and revert my edit. If anyone should be asking the agenda question, I think I'd have a better reason. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you, Niteshift. Haven't encountered you in a while.  Not sure what you're accusing me of.  Stalking, maybe? --Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Odd that you'd find an article you never edited in until I made an edit, then you start opposing it. First you refuse to discuss, then when you finally do, half of your "discussion" is talking about me and the other half is about a different section. I haven't started working on other sections, so I don't really care at this point if there is non-notable stuff in there. The item in question is trivial recentism, nothing more. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite a stretch there. UCLA happens to be the most local university to me and it and the subject of the student interest me.  I didn't see any content in the main UCLA article so I went to this one and stumbled on an edit war.  I noticed you have never taken an interest in this article before either.  Thank you for your opinion. --Oakshade (talk) 04:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Stretch? Not really. And what you classified as an "edit war" was a couple or reverts, which that editor pretty much has dropped out of for the past couple of days.....until you decided to start reverting, ignoring the discussion and talking about other sections. BTW, I DID edit that article a few days before that item was added. So, once again, you make a statement about something I did and it proves to be false. All that aside, can you honestly tell me that you truly believe that 5 years from now, this incident will even be remembered? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your good faith gesture. I am puzzled where you got the "fourth editor" thing from. Thus far, you and fiatlut are the only 2 that have put it in. Regardless, I do appreciate the gesture. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fourth, as in 4 total editors weighing in on this. It would be three supporting and one opposing at that point.--Oakshade (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Who are the ones beside you and fiatlut? I haven't seen anyone else edit the material in dispute or join the discussion. What am I missing? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As if now there isn't any. It would be: 1. You  2. Faitlut  3. Me  4. A possible fourth editor to weigh in on this.  That would be 4 total.--Oakshade (talk) 04:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, 4 total. It sounded as if you were saying there were already 3 supporting inclusion. Gotcha. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I could've been more clear in the edit summary.--Oakshade (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There was more to this
I didn't realize, this youtube issue was already discussed over at the University of California, Los Angeles article, with two other editors (including one admin) removing the youtube thing because it was a non-notable event. . As an amusing aside, while you questioned if I had an agenda or not, it was the same editor (Fiatlut), that entered it in both articles and, when it was removed, his response included "Do people refuse to submit to the freedom of speech, or are you all racists?". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw that too and was earlier under the mistaken impression that there were more users who preferred the content. I'm stepping away from this for a while.  Thanks. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just noticed it today. Take care. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was also sockpuppetry involved. See Sockpuppet investigations/Theserialcomma‎ for details. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm staying out of this one. I sometimes make mistakes too (don't get the wrong idea, for those I've clashed with - I'm usually right. :) )--Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that this guy has a long history of harassing others who disagree with or challenge him, that might not be a bad idea. You can see what he tried to do with his User:Deathblazer sockpuppet when Niteshift36 challenged him. For whatever reason this guy seems to be obsessed with adding unsourced or poorly sourced "controversy" content or sections to certain articles. I doubt this will be the last we see of him, although he may or may not return to that specific article. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Floydian's childish behavior
NOTE : While this was a discussion between Moabdave and I about the Hollywood Freeway article, User:floydian, who had nothing to do with the editing of the article or discussion, decided to drop in here and make attacks at me.--Oakshade (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC) I have reverted your actions. If you read the talk page, I agree with the last comment by (at 17:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)). –Fredddie™ 04:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a bit dismayed by your use of the edit descriptions as a bully pulpit. It is equally as childish for you to use your edit descriptions to call out another editors actions as being childish.  You need to work out your differences with  and not poke fun at them in edit descriptions.  Thanks. –Fredddie™ 04:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Freddie, but that's exactly what we have been doing. --Oakshade (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Working out your differences or poking fun in edit descriptions? –Fredddie™ 05:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And Freddie, I see that you have ignored the entire discussion in Talk:Hollywood Freeway and decided to take it upon yourself to ignore community consensus. Join the discussion and stop childish edits. --Oakshade (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I just reread it and saw no consensus on what to do. There is consensus that something should be done, but nothing definitive.  Please AGF.  Thanks. –Fredddie™ 05:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just "reread it"? You made the command "work out your differences with " when for over three weeks that's exactly what we've been doing at Talk:Hollywood Freeway.  Please stop the childish attacks and be constructive like Rschen7754 and I have been. --Oakshade (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only attack here is your calling of other editors actions childish. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢
 * Ah, the bitter Floydian. Remember your attack on me in Articles for deletion/Carol Shaya (2nd nomination) for asking the nom who they were a sockpuppet of?  You stated my "accusations of sockpuppetry are completely in bad faith and totally unacceptable."  Well, Floydian, that nom was blocked for sockpuppetry.  If you really feel that my accusing the sockpuppet of being a sockpuppet was "completely in bad faith and totally unacceptable" and  you weren't just making a childish attack for the sake of it,  then certainly you'd open a case at the Admin's Noticeboard. I'm still waiting. --Oakshade (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I like how you brought a totally unrelated situation into the picture. The result of what happened there is irrelevant of the fact that you are not a checkuser capable of prematurely declaring someone as a sockpuppet is such a derogatory way. Regardless, it is a separate situation from this and there are no rollover points for incivility. Stop calling other editors "childish", or I certainly will open a case there. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  02:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who made the attack on me, Floydian. It was obvious the sockpuppet was a sockpuppet.  If you truly felt that I am "not a checkuser capable of prematurely declaring someone as a sockpuppet is such a derogatory way" (actually I stated "Can you please tell us what account this is a sock of? ", which was quite polite and un-derogatory) then please open an Admin noticeboard case. -->Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents<--- Otherwise you're wasting your time as well as mine and only serve to demonstrate your inability to interact with editors your disagree with.  It's childish, Floydian.  --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly, you will continue to insult as you please. A great indication of your maturity. Good day. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  03:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You're the one who barged into this conversation to make insults, and now idle threats, Floydian.
 * The only attack here is your calling of other editors actions childish. is not an insult, it's a statement of fact. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  05:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

So you're opening Noticeboard case like you threatened? Leaving as you implied with your "good day" message or continue this childish harassing? You're clearly obsessed with me. --Oakshade (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The only person who is childishly harassing people is you, Oakshade. I was merely stepping in to echo the voice of several editors and an administrator before me, but even that fails to get through to you. I will respond in defense of myself when you make blatantly false accusations against me, and I will open a case when I feel like it, despite your repeated egging. -  ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ  <sup style="color:#3AAA3A;">τ <sub style="color:#3AAA3A;">¢  07:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So I take it you're going to continue your strange stalking obsession with me and write these childish empty threats. --Oakshade (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NSONGS
Please familiarize yourself with this guideline and with the discussion at the Pink Floyd project before restoring articles to non-notable songs. Thanks. --John (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Very familiar with the guideline and the discussion at PF is not conclusive.--Oakshade (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, per WP:ONUS you must demonstrate a consensus for notability before restoring. Can you do that? --John (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you are the only person demanding deletion, the burden is on you to gather a consensus for your actions. In fact, the articles are sources demonstrating passing WP:N which trumps WP:NSONGS.  WP:CONSENSUS states:"Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.  Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.  In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any special effort."'
 * These articles have been around since 2006 with you being the only person who attempted deletion. You are very out of line with Consensus per WP:CONSENSUS. --Oakshade (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to take these to AfD you feel that the sources don't indicate passing WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem confused. I am not seeking to delete these content-free stubs but to redirect them to the parent album per NSONGS. Which part of that are you having difficulty understanding? --John (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * They're not content free. They're stubs, but over 3,000k of content is not "content free."  These pass WP:N which trumps WP:NSONGS.  You can send these to AfD if you feel differently. --Oakshade (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My arse. Test case; show me the notable and referenced information on The Hero's Return, which you restored. We are not concerned with size but quality here. Take your time and give a good answer, please. --John (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Take your time to write something without reference to your "arse," please. The references are in the article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The references establish only that ""The Hero's Return" is a song from Pink Floyd's 1983 album, The Final Cut." If that is all we can say about a song it does not need a standalone article, per NSONGS. Is there any reasoned argument you can bring to this or are you just opposing policy because you like the band? --John (talk) 21:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very much in line with "policy" (you're actually arguing WP:NSONGS and WP:N which are guidelines, but whatever) and don't recall mentioning I "like the band." You've gone from a reference to your "arse" to a straw man.  For your test case, "The Hero's Return", there is plenty of significant coverage which demonstrates passing WP:N.   If you feel you're right, you can send these to Afd for community input to prove you're correct.  I'm waiting. --Oakshade (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

A Google search shows notability? Hmm, I think you are somewhat out of step with our standards here. If this is the best you can come up with to show notability, I'd say we are done here. Take 24 hours or whatever you need to find better sources for these articles. Failing that I'll redirect them again. Cheers. --John (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The content in the G-search shows notability. I didn't want to take the time outside of an Afd to prove to you with each source.  I'll revert you again.  Sending these to AfD will solve your problems but you seem afraid of community input.  Cheers.--Oakshade (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Show me which content from the Google search satisfies our requirements and I will concede you are right. There is no need for an AfD on such an obvious topic. Until then, I just see someone threatening to edit-war against consensus, which would then become a user conduct issue. Your call. --John (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You are the only one against consensus on this one. As you don't seem to understand the policy of WP:CONSENSUS I'll quote from it again. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus.  Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached.  In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time without any special effort.


 * Again, you are the only person since 2006 that attempted to delete these articles. You are fighting tooth and nail against Consensus and even cowering away community input to attempt to gain consensus.  If it's "such an obvious topic", then you should have no problem AfDing these.--Oakshade (talk) 22:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Ma'ale HaShalom
That's great that you actually made an effort to find a source to verify that it is a road, but I do not appreciate being accused of bad faith in your edit summary. I don't know when removing unverified content became an act of bad faith. The guidebook only mentioned the gate, not the street. For all I could tell at that time it wasn't really a street. WP:V is the cornerstone of our content policies, it's not exactly something we should be ignoring: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Luckily that threshold has at last been met, but there was no need to throw a gratuitous accusation into your edit summary. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hard to see that someone who has made a very concerted effort to delete an article removing the most basic description of an article topic as good faith. The simplest of map searches would've confirmed this most basic information.  I see you were involved with the first AfD which dated back to June of 2010.  It's not like you didn't have time to do a 3 second search.  That's the evidence.  --Oakshade (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * While you were looking over that first AFd did you happen to notice that you also participated, and that you, who was arguing to keep the article in both afds, did not bother to do the map search either until after the second afd had closed? Why didn't you do it if you knew it would be so easy? See, by that kind of hogwash logic you can accuse almost anyone of bad faith. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about your removal of the the most basic information about the topic which would've only taken a few seconds to verify. In that AfD, as with the recent one, I actually did examine the street in g-maps to get more information on it but like with any common sense editor I didn't think a single user trying really hard to delete the article would actually demand "I want to see proof of even its existence!" Under your same rationale, I dare you to delete the entire opening paragraphs of Jongno and Tverskaya Street since there is absolutely no verification in those articles that those streets exist.  Also don't bother taking a few seconds verifying the streets exist as you didn't do with this article and go straight to deleting them.  --Oakshade (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Last year it spent three weeks at AFD, with you and several others insisting that there should be sources, yet you did not find them then. You yourself argued this last time that there were no sources because the road had changed names over the years, implying that you had done a search yourself and found nothing. To say I acted in bad faith by removing content that was not verified after being repeatedly challenged is horseshit and you know it. I ask again, if this was such an obvious move how come nobody did it during the 4 weeks in total it was at AFD? It was only after those arguing to keep repeatedly failed to provide the most basic verification that I removed it. You know what, don't even bother answering that, just don't accuse users of bad faith unless you have a real reason, not as part of some inclusionist nonsense crusade. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The real reason and evidence is there. You removed "is a street in Jerusalem."  That took only 3 seconds to verify and, as I already answered you, I did verify that on a g-map search last year and more recently but, I'll repeat, as with any common sense editor I didn't think to insert a map citation because a single user trying really hard to delete the article would actually demand "I want to see proof of even its existence!"   Not wanting a fiction source.  Yes, I get that and agree that it doesn't satisfy the notability.  But acting as if there was no other way to verify its existence and you couldn't take a few seconds to do so?  You're an administrator and you know better than that. --Oakshade (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * And sorry you felt the need to violate WP:CIVIL by twice using foul language. --Oakshade (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)