User talk:RasputinAXP/Archive05

Articles for deletion/Kiwi Alejandro Camara
Are you sure you didn't mean "No Consensus"? I think you nullified that one. Not even the sockpuppetry made a difference, eh? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear to me that the article itself focused on nothing but the fact that he made racial slurs in class outlines he posted on a website. I'll enumerate it more clearly on the close, but I'm not prejudiced against recreation of a more encyclopediac version of the articlem, or creation of an article regarding the "controversy," but it all seems pretty weak to me. RasputinAXP   c  20:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how you can just delete an article when the clear majority favored keeping it and it was not shown that any policy was violated. If I remember the article from the last time I saw it, about one half of it was devoted to the racial controversies, but multiple sides of the issues were presented, and the article on the whole was well-sourced and informative. It seems to me the solution if you don't think the article is balanced is to add other information to it, not killing the entire article and demeaning the work of those who helped write it.

Your judgment in deleting the article here was astoundingly poor.Zigzogger 06:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal of an article just about the controversies strikes me as cumbersome. You want an article about "the kiwi camara controversy at Yale" but not one about Kiwi Camara? Also, I just did a vote count, it was 11 to 7 in favor of keeping the article. I realize that there is more to a consensus than a simple majority, but I do not think any 7 votes out of 18 is a consensus either. Please restore the article (I am assuming you are able to) and make the changes you think are needed to make it fair.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzogger (talk • contribs)
 * I'm slightly flattered that someone made an account just to yell at me. RasputinAXP   c  19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well no, I didn't yell, I questioned your judgment in deleting an article when a large majority of those polled voted to keep it, and there was no case that it violated any wikipedia policy.

The article was fine to begin with and never should have been deleted in the first place. If you don't like the content of an article, you ought to improve it yourself rather than (1) deleting the article even when a clear majority are against deleting it (2) restoring the article to someone's user page and asking them to improve it (3) possibly restoring it to the wikipedia after it is improved to your satisfaction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zigzogger (talk • contribs)

Rasputin, I am also a bit surprised by this decision. First, no consensus appeared to be reached, and second, I disagree that the article "focused" on the course outline controversy. The article really had no focus: it was one brief biographical section followed by three sections of the controversy. In fact, that's how the article evolved: when I first came across it, it was just the bio, so I added on a short description of the Harvard incident, which exploded into three more sections over the next few months. Deletion of the article just strikes me as a needless move; it would be far better to work with what we had and improve it rather than recreation from nothing (and likely ending up with a similar article). SpuriousQ 10:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and work with it. It's been undeleted to your user space at User:SpuriousQ/Kiwi Alejandra Camara. RasputinAXP   c  19:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks for restoring the content. However, I don't really have the energy or motivation to improve it myself.  What do you think of putting it back in the normal namespace, with a  tag?  This would more easily allow users to work on it, and we would retain the edit history also. SpuriousQ 04:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You know what? I've gone over all of the sources I can find on Google, and they're all about the same as this article. There was the one mention from the Harvard Law Record, and the rest is written (including external links of "a funny video of him") as if it were a personal web page. I don't feel it should go back in articlespace. I'd suggest you write a new article based on what can be gleaned only from reliable sources, and keep it to encyclopediac items, his love for ballroom dancing notwithstanding. RasputinAXP   c  12:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Rasputin, I am not clear what your ruling on this article now is. Today I restored the article and made several improvements. The article was then blanked out by Big P, and then locked by another admin. If I cannot edit it, I will request the article be undeleted by the formal process, but I am hoping not to have to go into that hassle. Zigzogger 01:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, what in the article did you view as not based on reliable sources? It seemed as well sourced or better than similar articles here. Please restore my most recent edit, and add source tags where you think they are needed.Zigzogger 01:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Everything regarding his use of the word "nigger" in his notes, which was the bulk of the article. The rest was simply not notable. I don't know any way to make it more clear than "the article, as was, didn't belong in articlespace." When an article is in bad shape like that, it's best to work on it in your own userspace. That being said, I put a copy in SQ's space because he asked nicely. Stretching the limits of don't bite the newbies a bit, but take a deep breath and relax. RasputinAXP   c  02:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/LudumDare
The result of the discussion was No Consensus, not Delete. If it is to be deleted by WP:WEB, then please place a Delete vote inside the AfD discussion - and things would be clear. As it is, WP:WEB is not mentioned at all in the discussion, and it has only a single Delete vote. I'm not saying it shouldn't be deleted because of WP:WEB eventually - just if you do it like you did, you violate the AfD policies. unsigned comment by
 * AfDs are up to the closing admin. RasputinAXP   c  20:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I imagine Allefant means to suggest that, inasmuch as only four users weighed in, only one after relisting, the article likely ought to have been relisted; even as admins are imbued with the authority to interpret AfDs (and, perhaps, to close an AfD where a consensus does not exist but where a guideline or policy surely requires a given outcome), they likely oughtn't to attempt to ascertain the views of the community writ large from the views expressed only by two users. That said, I think your close of this AfD was altogether reasonable, and, further, correct; I understand, though, why others might raise procedural, if not substantive, objections.  :) Joe 03:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True, Joe. There's also WP:IAR, which, though I'm hesitant to apply it, seems like it would fit here. ;) RasputinAXP   c  12:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Earth's Special Forces
You chose to delete the article Earth's Special Forces and said it was "shutdown due to copyright violations." That was an April fools joke, and if you had actually gone to the website you'd have seen that. The mod is still active. unsigned comment by
 * in addition to the copyvio as listed. RasputinAXP   c  19:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Kerouac musical influences
Hi, I'm interested to know why you removed my link to the website listing hundreds of musical items influenced by Kerouac. Pitoucat 00:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding the same link to several pages looked like spam to me. Create an External Links section in Jack Kerouac in popular culture and re-add it there. RasputinAXP   c  00:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Kiwi Alejandro Camara
It seems that Zigzogger has taken matters into his/her own hands and restored Kiwi Alejandro Camara as it was before with the addition of a cleanup tag. I know you specifically called for the deletion of this article and suggested that edits to the article should be made under User:SpuriousQ/Kiwi Alejandra Camara for possible restoration if it passes notability. Because Zigzogger has restored the article even when you deleted it, you might want to take a look into this matter. --  ßίζ ·  קּ‼  ( talk  |  contribs )  23:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Showoff...
why was this page deleted... i was in the process of working on it.. please put it back up. - user:xsxex
 * It was a collection of external links, CSD A3. RasputinAXP   c  00:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Heads up
User:Zigzogger / User:Zigz0gger vandalised your talk page, I have reverted it to it's last sensical state. I have nominated the matter for his suspension, perhaps you too should commence some action against him. Jachin 06:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to hear that you've been vandalized, but really, would it be so hard to submit this for more consensus? Last AfD was malformed due to suckpuppetry and massive amounts of NPA violations from Big.P, and people simply did not want to slog through it. I am pretty sure consensus was malformed and this would benefit from further discussion. Suggest you voice your above opinion there and see where it goes. And if you do, please remind Big.P to stay the hell out of it. That guy makes me crazy. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 12:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Crzrussian, I'm pretty sure you can make legitimate suggestions about extending the AfD for the article without having to get on your soapbox and deride me behind my back. If it's any indication, your demeanor also drives me crazy- if you read anything I've placed on your talk page lately, you can see that my tone is one of consensus building, or trying to solve this problem between us, while little barbs like these from you demonstrate your lack of ability to work with others, especially those who have different opinions from you.
 * In my months of editing on Wikipedia, I have never a more pompous editor who has such terrible faith in others and one who will stop at nothing to let their opinions prevail:
 * Everytime you thought I was attacking you, it was really just a misunderstanding on your part. I have tried multiple times to politely explain my intentions but you push me away.
 * I think it is more than clear that your accusation of me as a sockpuppet has been unfounded. I told you multiple times that I have a dynamic IP. The sockpuppetry case has been around for more than 3 weeks now and has been absolutely untouched- a testament to how inconclusive your "evidence" is, or lack thereof. If the community determines that I indeed have been sockpuppeting, I'd have no choice but to accept your derision of me as one, but until that actually happens, I'd appreciate you not prematurely labeling me as a sockpuppet.
 * As a side note, the contention between us should have no effect on anyone's opinion regarding the AfD. Multiple users who decided the article should be kept or deleted had opinions that were virulently different from ours. The AfD was already relisted once. Not to mention, Rasputin himself explained that he chose to delete the article not necessarily based on the number of votes, but at his own discretion.
 * I'm trying to put our argument aside, but your constant exploitation of it leaves me no choice but to respond like this. The fact that you're falsely accusing me of certain acts and asking other editors to snub me out of participating in a community-built encyclopedia is reprehensible.
 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]]

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption. I'm tired of you constantly harassing me on Wikipedia, directly and indirectly. I told you if you left me alone, I'd leave you alone. Please consider those words wisely.
 * --  ßίζ ·  קּ‼  ( talk  |  contribs )  18:28, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ...can't personal arguments between you two take place somewhere besides my talk page? I'd like to nip this in the bud, here. RasputinAXP   c  18:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Crazy clearly wants your involvement in this argument, I honestly could care less. But who better to defend myself in front of? :) --  ßίζ ·  קּ‼  ( talk  |  contribs )  18:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I just woke up and logged in to find Zig banned indefinately for what he's done. Que sera sera. RasputinAXP   c  14:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, Rasputin, thanks for reverting my talk page. Zigzogger was driving me nuts. --  ßίζ ·  קּ‼  ( talk  |  contribs )  18:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Eh... my apologies. I was peeved. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 22:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion: Bloggers Corner
You recently deleted a new page, Bloggers Corner, that I posted about 5 minutes before. While i understand your Wiki admin status, I am intersted to know why you deleted it. If you felt the page was promotional, it would be easy to remove the links to the involved parties blogs. I entered the page as place holder for the upcoming analysis we're doing on how to include bloggers usefully at industry conferences. There is no promotion intended there, just analysis that might be potentially useful for others. The catch-all phrase for this activity being "Bloggers Corner".

In any regard, i'd like to understand the policy related logic to the delete so I don't make the same mistake again. Also - isn't there some system of contacting a new page's original author and at least notifying them of the reasons for the delete. I respect the fact that you have a lot of "crap" (as you put it) coming into Wikipedia every day, but even an alert giving reasons would be useful.

Thanks for your response, Niel
 * It was a collection of links, WP:CSD A3. Promotion or not, "analysis that might be potentially useful" sounds more like it'd be suited to your own web page and not as an encyclopediac article. RasputinAXP   c  01:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Funeral Fog
Hi there,

Why was my "Funeral Fog" article deleted? I'm still a bit new here, sorry if something was inappropriate, I would just like to know what it was. RealDeadOne 20:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.
 * It was copied nearly verbatim from their website, making it a copyright violation. RasputinAXP   c  20:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. Ok, I actally wrote the website bio and am credited on the website for doing so, although I suppose that isn't good enough proof? If I re-write the bio does that work? RealDeadOne 20:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rewriting it is fine, but without using your real name somewhere on both sites, we can't assume that you are who you say you are. Also, in the future please rememver to sign your name using ~ . RasputinAXP   c  20:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, will do. RealDeadOne 20:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

re: leet leg@l d00dz
I deleted the redirect you created. I know from the deletion review discussion that you meant it as a joke but I think it came just a shade too close to WP:POINT.

There's also the fact that I'm a sourpuss. To paraphrase Tommy Lee Jones (from Men in Black), "we at Deletion Review do not have a sense of humor that we am aware of."

Thank you for your continued work cleaning-up Wikipedia. Rossami (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know, I was going to delete it soon anyway and got caught up in the Speedy backlog...but thanks :) RasputinAXP   c  20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh and that said, it could've been worse, it could've been Rationales not to Vote for Hillary or whatever that nonsense was. RasputinAXP   c  20:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Response
(From Cicero's Talk): For all of your talk of Community_Justice and promoting civility, this edit strikes me as particularly uncivil. Keep your cool, please and remember that verifiability is one of the five pillars you purport to uphold. RasputinAXP  c  13:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how you can find this edit uncivil. Lighten up a little I apologise for anu offense caused however. Cicero Dog 13:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * heard of books? big papery things? yes? .... other than attempting to ram them into my floppy disk drive in the hope the will end up on this talk page i see no way of my source reaching you. ...pretty insulting to the intelligence of anyone asking you to verify your sources for this article. Continuing in that vein certianly isn't going to help. RasputinAXP   c  13:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

(From Cicero's Talk): a gun? You're joking, right? Is there some other way this can be construed than a physical threat? RasputinAXP  c  13:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * yes it's a common expression down our way....e.g. "would you like a drink?" "would I like a gun?" it simply means yes....a bit like..."would you like a drink?" "is the pope a catholic?" etc. 13:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Cicero Dog
 * It's not an expression I've ever heard used by any of the Brit expats I know. As I said below, that's a pretty weak explanation and I'm waiting for verification from other sources, but Google's not showing me anything either. RasputinAXP   c  14:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for cutting in on this discussion, but I have a problem with Cicero Dog's most recent comment on that AfD. In response to Craig451's suggestion that Cicero take a look at the Harvard citation guide because it would be useful, Cicero replied so might a gun meaning that a gun would be useful to him. I think this is more than a little uncivil. Metros232 13:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * see User talk:Cicero Dog for me saying the exact same thing. The reply regarding the Catholicism of the Pope above is his reply. I find it pretty weak. RasputinAXP   c  13:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * your religious views don't really apply Cicero Dog 14:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with religious views; I was merely pointing out that you had responded to it above. WP:AGF. RasputinAXP   c  14:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

oh, come now like, ye dinnae ken wit yer oan aboot. naeb'dy ye ken'll ken aboot tha expression fur its rare in muckle gaein' rarer. Just an example of the dialect from which the expression comes to show you its great difference from english. Cicero Dog 15:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly none of the Irish/Scots/Welshmen I know have ever heard that phrase either. RasputinAXP   c  17:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologisation Proclamation

 * Firstly, just to point out none of the Brit ex-pats you know will come from the area i come from.
 * Secondly i apologise for any offense caused by my doric outburst
 * Thirdly - delete the page if you wish. 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Rasputen it does not matter who it was directed at; the point is incivility can not be tolerated i believe we agree on this. Cicero Dog

Leetots
Is it possible to have page leetots undleted, a full wiki is being created and we would like to put it back up thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.115.107 (talk • contribs).
 * I've already responded on your talk page. I've also corrected your header; Leetots was speedily deleted as db-nocontext. RasputinAXP   c  17:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If the page contained much more info, could it be undeleted- leetots —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.202.115.107 (talk • contribs).
 * I'm not joking when I said it was one line. "Leetots is an open tibia server that makes use of the tibia 7.6 client" is all it said, and if you're making your own wiki about something, I'm pretty sure you know that information already. RasputinAXP   c  18:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE DONT BAN ME I  AM SORRY! :(

James Carey
Is the redirect you created for James Carey correct? You redirected a page for James Carey, who seems to be a college communications scholar, to the page for actor Jim Carrey. I think this may have been in error. --Charles 03:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There was no assertion of notability; the only fact listed was that he is/was a professor at Columbia, which doesn't confer notability. I redirected it as a likely mispelling of Jim Carrey's full name. RasputinAXP   c  03:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not faulting you for your action, since I do not know the circumtance. I have a feeling, though, that the page's original creator was still at work on it.  I posted a note on his talk page, so I'm hoping he'll say something one way or the other---if the article merits the attention.  Thanks for your response. --Charles 03:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of LIP6
Please be so kind as to restore the rewritten article on LIP6. It is not reposted material, it is a vastly different article that specifically avoids the copyvio concerns that led to the original deletion. Please see the deletion review discussion. MyPOV 8:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: RasputinAXP, thank you for the restore. MyPOV 19:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Slowly learning :)
I use it mostly to get info, but I can't resist editing when stuff is either wrong or looks horrible :) Hdw 21:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

deletion of croquet trans tasman
Hey - I just started writing the page. It's a collaborative effort - why'd you delete it straight away???

Re: References
From KarenAnns talk page: "KarenAnn, great work on referencing; the only thing is that you need to take a look at Footnotes and see how the system is used. The cite templates you're using in the middle of paragraphs are massive and make it difficult to edit entries you've added references to. If you need any help figuring it out (it can be a pain in the butt sometimes), let me know on my Talk page. Thanks! RasputinAXP   c  15:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)"


 * Just wanted to say that I'm the culprit here. I was the one who introduced the reference notation in that way, I'll convert them all to the "shorthand" version, so that the text wil become more readable. mensch • t 15:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ah-HAH! It's OK, just wanted to give a heads up. Thanks for fessing up, though ;) RasputinAXP   c  15:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Trust Me I Am Not
I know Craig451 in person and i am not misunderstanding his points. He has made it clear that he will make my life on wikipedia difficult...and believe me he and ciraric (his sidekick) are certainly doing that. Cicero Dog 21:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you have no choice but to ignore them, not to be uncivil in return, which is what shouting "assume good faith" over and over winds up being. I'm not entirely sure your animosity isn't related to the conflict over your Dylan poem article on AfD. RasputinAXP   c  21:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I question your defense of Djh1102. RasputinAXP   c  21:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, you might but may say that... Djh is a competant and kind person. He can however become rather excitable and is quite easuly mislead. He has made several good edits to wikipedia before he became a member. He was unaware of the rules of wikipedia and the punishments he could have recieved. He now knows how bad his actions were and regrets them whole heartedly.

As to my altercation with craig451 and ciraric and has nothing to do with the "Dylan Thomas Poem". May i also draw your attention to user:ciraric's talk page where he was very uncivil. Cicero Dog 21:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter
I'm out of here. Trouble yourself no more. Mensch gave me links to my page so I nominated it for speedy deletion. KarenAnn 23:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Karen, I've been trying as hard as I can to help you out, but you seem to take everything personally. I'm sorry you feel that way. RasputinAXP   c  00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
I think that Dario de Judicibus is almost entirely spam, inserted by the person himself and I think it was already deleted once on en.wiki.

This article was long ago discussed on it.wiki, extremely reduced and survived a vote for deletion just for a few votes. I think you should delete it, but the deletion procedure of en.wiki is really too complicated for me and I am not willing to learn it, that is the reason why I contacted an admin. --Ggonnell 13:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Mille grazie. I tagged it as a non-notable biography and deleted it. RasputinAXP   c  13:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I discovered that he wrote also on an ancestor of him in Martino de Judicibus! My opinion is that is also spam, but you can judge yourself. --Ggonnell 14:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[Added my signature: --Ggonnell 16:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)]

Rabbi Benjamin Kelsen
Could you please explain further why you deleted the above referenced page?

Ezra Sofer
 * I agreed that there was no assertion of notability in the article. RasputinAXP   c  15:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To many of us there is notability. what do you need to leave it up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EzraHaYeushalmi (talk • contribs).
 * The biography guidelines are contained at WP:BIO. As it stands, Rabbi kelsen does not meet the requirements. RasputinAXP   c  19:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it from reading the criteria to which you linked, these guidelines are not policy, but rather the suggestions of some people. Why not simply leave up the articles which relate to areas in which you do not have an expertise and rely on those who do? Would this not make Wikipedia a more universal reference source? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EzraHaYeushalmi (talk • contribs).
 * The guidelines for WP:BIO are guidelines that allow us to make a universal judgement call about persons who would be notable enough to be included in the encyclopedia. Applying the guidelines in different ways for different people would be awfully unfair. RasputinAXP   c  13:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

KarenAnn
I'm having so much trouble with the whole KarenAnn situation. It bothers me that she thinks so ill of me, and it REALLY bothers me that she thinks ill of you (because you haven't done anything), so I've got this urge to try to explain things but she immediately assumes either I'm wrong or it's an attack. I'm going to just leave the whole thing alone and hope that it turns out for the best. TomTheHand 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am too. I've unfortunately decided that it's more trouble than it's worth to try and talk to her about anything. The persecution complex is surprising; I know I'm somewhat known as a hard person to get along with, but this has just devolved into a silly arguement that's not going to turn out for the better. Despite anything we do, we're going to be the bad guys to her, so I'm with you and leaving it alone. Except, of course, to defend myself from personal attacks she decides to make against me. RasputinAXP   c  18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Nick Berg conspiracy theories
Just bringing to your attention that a user is attempting to add information to Talk:Nick Berg conspiracy theories which was just deleted and trying to promote that someone recreate the article. --Strothra 00:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Dominion of British West Florida
I am not contesting the delete, but I do wish to learn from it. Am I correct in thinking that major probolem with the article was "Micronation does not appear to meet guidelines for notability at this time."? If so, where would I find a guideline/check list for notability for Micronations? Bo 04:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No. There was a complete lack of verifiable sources for the "Dominion of British West Florida." RasputinAXP   c  15:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I assure you the Dominion in not a hoax. I believe that many who left very brief massages such as ‘silly’ or ‘hoax’ with no justification were, in reality, registering their disagreement with our cause and not providing evidence that our cause is, in reality, made up. We have a significant, and growing, number of people who back our cause, and the Dominion, so it is real (in as far as it is a micronation not as yet a sovereign state). I understand that to keep the high standards that wikipedia is rightly so proud of you must make such decisions as this. However, our nation was not claiming to be anything that it wasn’t. We are working hard to increase awareness of our cause so that people, especially those living in the historical boarders of British West Florida, can make a more informed opinion on this matter. Can I ask what form of evidence would be required to convince you that we are a real group of people with a real cause (whether or not we can convince the majority of West Floridians of the worthiness of that cause only history will tell). I do hope you can work with the government of British West Florida to find a way that we can satisfy you of the factual correctness of this article – I do feel that many have tried to use the wiki deleting policy for their political ends and not for the interest of recording what is factually the case - could I perhaps be so bold as to quote Voltaire "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.". I understand that you are presented with many articles that are perhaps a little liberal with the truth and do believe that you are doing a very difficult job in sorting these – maybe the best way forward, after we have presented evidence for the existence of our cause, would be for a section on counter argument to the legitimacy of our claim to be added which would allow wiki’s reader to make an informed judgment on our cause. Yours faithfully,

A proud citizen of the Dominion,

Kevin Dobson, Esq.

PS

We feature in an article on the world History Blog:

http://world-history-blog.blogspot.com/2006/04/dominion-of-british-west-florida-and.html

Our main website can be found at:

http://dbwf.net/

A forum used by a number of active citizens can be found on:

http://www.reliableinformationsystems.com/bwf/forum/

A company connected to the Dominion can be found at:

http://www.geocities.com/britishwestfloridaco/Royalstd.htm

We are listed in Joeant’s Florida section at:

http://www.joeant.com/DIR/cat/7426/Florida

Our coins are listed in a review of micronational coins at:

http://opiniones.ebay.es/LAS-MICRONACIONES-Y-SUS-MONEDAS_W0QQugidZ10000000000957956

We are recognised by, among others, the Laterian City State:

http://www.freewebs.com/laterancitystate/foreignembassies.htm

and the Republic of Molossia (recognised itself by Sealand):

http://www.molossia.org/diplomatica.html

We are featured in a Merged Calendar of Micronational Holidays:

http://freecal.brownbearsw.com/Micronational_Calendar?KW=Micronational%20Holidays;Op=ShowIt&Date=2006-12-01

There is also a detailed review of the Dominion at:

http://www.geocities.com/erik_mccrea/links.html

I hope these will be of help to you.

Kevin Dobson, Esq.


 * I tried to ensure that the article meet the requirements of the section about using 'Self-published sources in articles about themselves'. Did I fail to follow the guildlines for using self-published informtation, or were there simply too few other sources available to 'cross-check' with? - Thanks, Bo 22:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The both of you: No, trust me there's no 'political agenda' in regards to the deletion of the article. It's just unverifiable by reliable sources. If you feel my decision was in error or the AfD was invalid, please take it up with deletion review. RasputinAXP   c  02:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am comfortable that your decision was correctly made. I do not intend to challenge your action.  The removal of the article indicates that to me that the Dominion article was not up to the standards of the wikipedia.  I feel that the article not being 'up to snuff' was my fault, (as the original author).  I'm asking you, as a qualified arbitrator of the standards, to help me identify the reasons the article did not qualify.  If I understand your reply correctly, the major issue was that the Dominion was not mentioned in enough independent and reliable sources to qualify.  If this is the case, Do I simply need to wait until a number of other sources (like newspapers or a travel guide company) mention the Dominion of British West Florida, then re-introduce the article? (But if independent sources do not mention the Dominion the article stays dead!) Bo 04:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, all it takes is a reliable source. Blogs are not reliable sources. Geocities and other free hosts are not reliable sources. See WP:RS. RasputinAXP   c  04:48, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks!! They (the DBWF folks) tell me that they will be listed in the upcoming Lonely Planet 'Guide to micronations', If they are, I'll try again...  Again, thanks for taking the time to work with me on this. Bo 20:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Desktop replacement computer
Hey RasputinAXP, sorry to bother you again, but could you have a look at desktop replacement computer? I'm starting to feel really guilty about reverting and removing content from that article, but I think some of NothingMuch's changes are hurting more than they're helping. TomTheHand 23:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it. Be bold is a good thing to live by. RasputinAXP   c  00:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll do my best :-) Thanks. It's just that a few things lately have made me feel like I rub people the wrong way on Wikipedia and I've been trying to tread more carefully. TomTheHand 02:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Chicago/Pittsburgh Unions players
Not that it matters much in this case, but a category created on the 29th May 2006 cannot possibly meet CSD C1. -Splash talk 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Equally so Category:Wikipedians Prefer Classic, again there was a correct reason for deletion, and CSD C1 doesn't fit. I've restored Category:Scops owls since it is presently on CfD. Easy, tiger! -Splash talk 23:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, sorry about that...clearing out Speedy backlog. I'll pay more attention on the Categories. RasputinAXP   c  00:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)