User talk:Pink Bull/Archive 1

June 2009
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --JBC3 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates
Hi Pink Bull - anyone can add or remove maintenance templates, though (as it looks like you've already been told) it's important to make sure that the problems mentioned in them have been thoroughly addressed. In the case of Barryville, it's no longer a dead-end page and is probably Wikified enough, so both of those templates can be removed - but leave the other two, since it's still a stub and still has no non-stub category. There's a list of most of the major maintenance templates at Cleanup templates, by the way. Grutness...wha?  10:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel
I have nominated Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel, 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/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. 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. SGGH ping! 16:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel
I have nominated Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel, 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/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. 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. SGGH ping! 16:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Article For Deletion Discussion
I noticed your comment about being unsure about participating in Articles for deletion/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. I just wanted to let you know you should feel free to participate in this and any other AfD discussion. Comments from everyone in the community are always welcome as long as they are constructive. If you feel this article is notable enough you should try to add some third party sources that discuss the subject such as news publications from reputable sources and consider expanding the article with more information. Don't let an article you wrote being nominated for deletion discourage you from further editing on Wikipedia. You should also remember to sign comments you place with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; after them which will convert to your signature when you save the post. Good luck, Curtis (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful attempt to find a compromise solution at the Bosnian American Library Articles for deletion discussion - I hope I didn't sound unappreciative! I was struck by Curtis's message above, an example of constructive and encouraging advice, unlike the usual throwing of rulebooks. Don't be discouraged, sometimes the rulebook throwers are right, the other times when they use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law or use one opposing rule without mentioning a supporting one, just be patient. When you're genuinely convinced that something is important/worthwhile the evidence will eventually turn up. Even if an article has been deleted an administrator can retrieve it for you to incorporate the new material before you restore it. All the best. Opbeith (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Opbieth. I don't really get why editors would seek to delete harmless but informative articles, but I guess that's just the way it is. --Pink Bull (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 21:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

As requested
User:Pink Bull/Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel. Thanks! Pastor Theo (talk) 00:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you :-) --Pink Bull (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles about Streets
I think you should read Notability_(streets,_roads,_and_highways) --Abc518 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I'll take it into consideration when thinking about creating articles.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Organ harvesting proposed merger
Hello. Thank you for taking the time to comment on the proposed merger of Reports of organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners to Organ harvesting in China. There are four things I would like to say. Firstly, I believe the statement in favor of merger is problematic and represents several misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Secondly, I believe the statement against merger is not quite on point, and does not cut to the heart of the issue; even though I had written some or all of it earlier, the context was different, and I will rewrite it tomorrow to properly present the argument. Thirdly, since you have given your opinion I hope that you will be willing to defend it or otherwise engage in rational argumentation based on Wikipedia policy on the issue—I call for that here and a little bit here (but the real stuff is in the first “here.”) Fourthly, thanks and have a good day! (or night)--Asdfg12345 04:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response, but I was on vacation. It looks like the discussion was "closed" so I don't think there's anything I can do at this time. Sorry, --Pink Bull (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Sullivan County
Thanks for your note. I felt that there was an overemphasis on that particular aspect of Sullivan County, which falls generally under the NPOV policy but is also a question of basic article structure. It just seemed excessive and out of proportion to its importance in relation to the county as a whole, even a small one like Sully.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. But you see, Sullivan County has few editors working on it, and is not in the process of being expanded. Hence we have to guard against certain elements being overemphasized. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's natural for some parts of an article on a locality to become a bit larger than others as an article grows. But that does not justify having the article grossly overemphasize the highway department, or a certain lake or recreation area, or the legal aid society, just because the rest of the article is undeveloped. If that were the case, all articles on particular geographic localities would become skewed because most aren't very active. That's just common sense I think. You can move the omitted material to the talk page, however, and it can be put in if the length of the article ever justifies its inclusion. I personally can think of many aspects of the county (its borscht belt heritage, its unemployment, its dying agriculture, the gas drilling controversy, and so on) that are far more worthy of our attention and expansion.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize that the section that was added was not large. But as you can see from the version before it was remove, the Sullivan County Legal Aid Panel was placed on a par with Demograhics, Travel and Tourism, the list of Towns, Education, Government and History. No matter how large the article eventually becomes, I don't see how the legal aid panel can warrant a section of its own unless, God forbid, the entire male population is incarcerated! Seriously, crime is bad in the county but not that bad. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to add to my userpage a citation template (for easy access when working on articles), but nothing comes up when I save the page. Does it not show up because such templates cannot be added to user pages? Because I've seen other user pages that do have templates on them. Thanks for your help.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Templates can be used on any page. What's happening on User:Pink Bull is that it's trying to use the template to create a citation.  Because you added the template without any information in it, it is displaying an empty citation which contains nothing.  If you want to display the text of the template, add a nowiki tag, which will just show what you type.  Put   before the template and   after it.  An example of how to use this is at Help:Wikitext examples.  Please let me know if there are any more questions.  Thanks!  --Mysdaao talk 20:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Cool! Thanks, Mysdaao.--Pink Bull (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Invitation
Hello, I notice that some of the articles you created have been put up for deletion. I am part of a group which helps save encyclopedic articles for deletion.

Thank you! I'll be glad to join.-- Pink Bull  18:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Robert Carson (baseball player)
I have nominated Robert Carson (baseball player), 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/Robert Carson (baseball player). 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. Wizardman 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Hope to see you working on articles!

{| style="border: 4px solid #C00; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px;" cellpading="30" align="center" Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, which can be fixed and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
 * colspan="2" |


 * Thanks! Cool!-- Pink Bull  03:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
Content


 * News items and announcements
 * Contest


 * Featured editor: Teeninvestor
 * Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers


 * Want ads
 * Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

Re: Bayless Conley Sourcing
Hey Pink Bull,

Just noticed that you removed the unsourced tag from bayless conley and was a little confused regarding that action. The only reference is his bio on his own webpage which from how I understand WP:RS is essentially the same as being unsourced. Nefariousski (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This (Bayless Conley) is the correct link. Perhaps you're right, and should not have removed the templates. I was under the impression that the the lack of reliable sources is not the same as unsourced. I've seen other templates for the use of primary sources or the use of unverifiable sources, which may be a more appropriate template for the article. I'll see if I can find those templates. Thanks, -- Pink Bull  15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people
Just seeking clarification: You placed a comment on this proposal in the Neutral Section, but you put the prefix of "Oppose" on it. Are you opposed to the proposal or neutral?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 23:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a mistake. I'll fix it now. Thanks!-- Pink Bull  15:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Excuse me for the speedy deletion tag i meant to tag a different one. (OMGstrings (talk) 03:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC))
 * No probs :) -- Pink Bull  04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

hmmm i see Sarey Savy's article kept getting deleted.(OMGstrings (talk) 06:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

Speedy deletion declined: Tahir Manzoor Lone
Hello Pink Bull. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tahir Manzoor Lone, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Professorship is a credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AfD if required, may well fail WP:PROF.''' Thank you. Ged UK  18:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't I tagged the article for speedy deletion, but it's fine :) -- Pink Bull  01:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Pink Bull/Focus Softnet
I've made a copyedit. That's more like it... only can I suggest that before we move this that we create an article on what a freehold company is? This is currently a red link... if you can provide me with some info on this I'll create the article. That seems genuinely useful, and when I did a search it appears that more than one article talks about such a thing.

Good work, incidentally. Keep digging, the more info you add the more it stands a chance of being kept. Once an article gains a foothold, others will edit it and it will expand. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! Don't have much time these days, but I will put in more work when I get a chance.-- Pink Bull  14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Danny Mountain
I suggest you read WP:PORNBIO. The criteria is, "Has received nominations for well-known awards in multiple years." Not just being nominated, but multiple nominations in multiple years.  ttonyb (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for pointing that out. -- Pink Bull  01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My pleasure...  ttonyb (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Samantha Garcia
Would you please start reading the sections you are referring to before you remove CSD tags from articles. WP:ENT states, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." If you had taken the time to look at the movies and TV shows, you would have recognized they were not, by any interpretation, notable.  ttonyb (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but her filmography listed a number of movies, which I thought made a credible claim to notability. I did not know they were all insignificant roles. Sincerely, -- Pink Bull  14:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion and later rewriting my invitation
Just thought you may want to know, an alternate account deleted my poorly worded invitation on your talk page. Some editors disagreed about these deletions. and also went to ANI about it.

I actually appreciate this deletion because I completely rewrote the template. The template was inviting you here: here. Ikip 04:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
--Tyw7 (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 23:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You may ...
find this interesting. Then again, maybe not!--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Pink Bull/Talk:Beyondmedia Education
I have userfied the talk page as noted above. Do you want the main stub userfied also? Bearian (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was WP:BOLD and userfied it here - User:Pink Bull/Beyondmedia Education. Bearian (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * That's very kind of you! I was thinking of asking an administrator to userfy the article. Much appreciated!-- Pink Bull  22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your request for rollback
Hi. 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 no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see New admin school/Rollback. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 07:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.

Final discussion for Requests for comment/Biographies of living people
Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:
 * 1) Proposal to Close This RfC
 * 2) Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip  02:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Brian Ickler
You placed a speedy deletion template on the article, which I removed because there is a clear claim to notability. I noticed that you had worked on the article and was wondering if you placed the template by mistake. Sincerely, -- Pink Bull  03:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a mistake on that article.Thank You for pointing out my mistake. Nascar1996 (talk•contribs) 04:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No probs :) -- Pink Bull  04:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Nascar1996 (talk•contribs) 04:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain...
I saw your comment in this recent afd.

I'd be interested in understanding your comment.

I won't assume that I know what "tangential instrumentalities" are.

You noted: "There only seems to be mention of these housed in government documents." Well, some people have asserted that topics need press reports to be notable. But that is not what our policies say. Lots of our articles don't use press reports as references. Press reports aren't generally available for topics of historical or scholarly interest.

Of course you have no obligation to explain yourself. And if you feel that, since the afd has concluded, there is no point in explaining yourself, I'd understand. But I would be grateful if you tried, because I think it is important to try to understand the positions of those who disagree with us.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! You're right: press reports are not generally available for topics of historical or scholarly interest and the lack of press reports should not automatically decide that a subject is not notable. However, since the war in Afghanistan has received substantial coverage, but these houses were not mentioned in press reports. Additionally, the houses did not seem to be the main topic in the government documents. For these reasons I felt that they were not notable. I hope this explains it better. Sorry about not being clear enough :) -- Pink Bull  02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

T.I.'s seventh studio album
Thank you for showing your interest to keep the article. I appreciate it. SE KinG. User page. Talk. 21:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing :) -- Pink Bull  00:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you are editing Aromatherapy
Hi PinkBull - there's a lot still to do on this article. There's a great deal of unsourced mumbo-jumbo and the structure is messy & unencyclopedic. Are you interested in helping improve this content? --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, but its a wholly unfamiliar subject to me so I'd rather not. Sorry. -- Pink Bull  14:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dada Ji
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dada Ji. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Dada Ji. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

UCHUG listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UCHUG. Since you had some involvement with the UCHUG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Novaseminary (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Stub Sorting: You can help!
Hello . Thank you for tagging as a stub. I noticed that you used the stub template. In the future, it would be greatly appreciated if you could sort the article to a subcategory by using one of these templates instead. For example, you can use US-novelist-1960s-stub for an American novelist born in the 1960s. Of course, if you can't find a proper category, you can always use the stub tag and someone else will sort it for you, or you can propose a new stub template or category here. Thanks! Gosox(55)(55) 02:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

A Woman's Song
I noted your removal of the speedy tag. I dissent from the remark - if you read the article, it goes into WP:COATRACK mode about the author of a collection of poetry. In any event, I think this is something that'll be best handled by AFD per your removal. Posting there... -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Subsequently to removing the speedy template and seeing your edit summary, I realized why you templated the article as an a7. Regardless, she, her books, or both may have a claim to notability, and an AFD may the best approach at this time. Sincerely,-- Pink Bull  22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

no offense taken
I am new to doing this. That's why I'm not an admin deleting the pages, I'm only tagging them! :) ~D a r t h Starbo  17:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, ok. But some may get deleted mistakenly by admins on the assumption that the speedy deletion tags are valid. For example, you tagged Dr. Bloodpudding, as an A7, the criteria for real people. Dr. Bloodpudding is a fictional character and not eligible under that criteria. -- Pink Bull  17:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 00:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Your comments at Talk:Hume Cemboard
A credible assertion of notability has to be made IN an article. For example, the article itself has to say something like "XYZ Company is the largest multinational conglomerate in the world" or something similar. Just saying something like "XYZ corporation is a company that manufactures glass bottles" isn't asserting notability because there's nothing indication why that company is unique and deserving of a Wikipedia entry. You're confusing making an assertion (or claim) of notability with actual notability. Again, a full explanation of this can be read at WP:CSD A7. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK, thanks for the clarification.-- Pink Bull  02:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Abena
Thanks for correcting the speedy tag on this page. I hadn't run into Wikibin before to know it was a mirror site. Thanks again! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I saw "wiki" in thh url and thought I should check it out because (from what i understand) there are no copyvio problems with wikis.-- Pink Bull  02:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's just a mirror of Wikipedia then no, but otherwise it's the same copyright issues as with any other website, and Wikibin just allows GFDL licensing which we can't accept anymore, thus my tag (I didn't even think to check if the page had been previously deleted). VernoWhitney (talk) 02:49, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't GDFL licensing allow anyone to use the content freely?-- Pink Bull  02:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For many purposes, yes. I didn't pay any attention to the discussions back when WP changed the stance on that, but WP:GFDL has a nice summation box at the top. Basically, we can accept PD or CC content, but not GFDL (for what underlying reason I don't really know and can't be bothered to dig into to find out). VernoWhitney (talk) 03:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * oh, OK, thanks for the info. -- Pink Bull  03:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Bart A. Baggett
OK - I'll go with the rewrite. Thanks for your interest.

I'm currently working my way through deadend articles, so I suspect that we may well meet again to debate a speedy.

Actually, if you have time could you take a look at Vigilante de Almada? Media coverage is very sparse, even in Portugal - more comments on blogs and the like than serious analysis. Article claims Police have confirmed reality, but I can't see a solid reference for this. I placed a prod, but this was challenged. What do you think?

Cje (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi. I started the rewrite, but can't guarantee I'll finish the job. My Wiki interests tend to wander. As for the article, I'll take a look, but if there's notability it will have to be established through Spanish-language sources, an area I'm of no help. Sorry, and sorry for the late response. -- Pink Bull  20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Midnight rush
A tag has been placed on Midnight rush 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 band or musician, 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. 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. GregJackP (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Curt mcriane
A tag has been placed on Curt mcriane 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, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies. 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. Supertouch (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Google "hoax"
Thanks for correcting me on that issue. Problem is, the spelling was messed up, making it implausible as a redirect. The things you learn every day. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Parachronism
Please stop deleting the talk contributions that I make in good faith. If you do not agree with what I have to say, you are welcome to comment to that effect on the same talk page. Once a consensus has been reached, we can decide on how to adjust the article, if at all. 186.105.204.126 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no "joke about Dachau Concentration Camp" in the article.-- Pink Bull  03:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you consider this treatment of the issue encyclopedic? I don't, because it's normal to have the text for a hyperlink to another article either be the title of that article, or a reasonable shorthand form for it (for instance to avoid a needless repetition of a term used in the same sentence, where the article title contains additional words to avoid abiguity rendered unnecessary by the context given in the sentence, or when the article title is very long). None of these apply in this case. Furthermore, being sent to Dachau would not have been the only conceivable punishment for such activities. The article on "Censorship in Nazi Germany" would be far more appropriate, but sadly it's little more than a stub at present. Added together, the use of the link in this case clearly seems intended as a joke of sorts. In any case, as I say, if you disagree with what I have to say on a talk page then you should say so on that talk page, rather than just deleting the comment. 186.105.204.126 (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the exact link you're referring to?-- Pink Bull  03:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The highlighted words are "unpleasant consequences", and the link goes to the article on "Dachau Concentration Camp". Holocaust victims and their families are no doubt laughing their socks off. 186.105.204.126 (talk) 03:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I understand what you are saying. Sorry about not assuming good faith. I did not realize you were referring to a hyperlink. I have removed the offending sentence together with the entire paragraph added by one user. -- Pink Bull  03:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good edits. I'd have done it myself, but I'm new to wikipedia and don't really have the hang of it yet. Thanks for fixing it. 186.105.204.126 (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. In general, if you see something suspicious and unsourced you can remove it without prior permission at the article talk page.-- Pink Bull  04:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Quick response on the ' Runway' fashion article!
I was simply trying to remove the stuff about the runway=airplane stuff. Please do so if you please, as the article reads silly at the mo. 1812ahill (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It was on my watchlist due to prior vandalism so I decided to do some minor fixes. The actual subject is not of interest to me so I probably won't be editing actual content. -- Pink Bull  20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)