User talk:SGGH/Archive 2010/May

Resident Evil Gaiden
This is related to a debate on the Resident Evil Wiki over its canonicity. One user; who may be one of the edit warers on Wikipedia, claimed that Gaiden was canon because it was confirmed in official publications. This turned out to be a loose mention to an Anti-Umbrella organisation; of which many are encountered in the series, thus leaving it ambiguous. The user then began to discredit official canon, under the impression that their "mistakes" were equal to Gaiden's "Major character dying despite appearing in later games" error, and completely ignoring the game not even being made by Capcom; the company that makes the official games. This edit war will continue if the article is unprotected.-- OsirisV (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The game is not canon. Two capcom members were part of the team, where they provided assistance on the game's storyline. One of them mentioned Leon as being part of an "Anti-Umbrella" organisation in a tie-in book, though this has since been retconned. No further publication; neither game nor book, has confirmed Gaiden as canon. Gaiden takes place before Umbrella's collapse, placing it in February 2003 at the latest. The ending has Leon replaced with a shape-shifting B.O.W., with Leon being killed before or during the Starlight liner's sinking. Resident Evil 4 takes place near late 2004, showing that Gaiden cannot be canon (The nature of Gaiden's storyline leaves no room for the real Leon to escape). Leon's epilogue file in Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, and the ending to the "Memories of a Lost City" chapter of the Darkside Chronicles both show that Leon was recruited into a government organisation directly after the events of Resident Evil 2. Leon does not acknowledge the events of Gaiden in the Darkside Chronicles or Resident Evil 4. Based on this storyline non-appearance and having been made by a different company, I think it seems pretty conclusive that Resident Evil Gaiden is not canon.--- OsirisV (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis
Hope so... :) Good edits! GK (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unicorns/Clydesdale DYK
Hi,

I thought that Unicorns and Clydesdale Bank 40 would make a good double hook at DYK. I've tried to propose it, but not quite sure I've done it right. Do you think it was a good idea? Could always list separately if necessary. As someone with "over 30 hooks", you've done it more times than me, so feel free to correct the mess I've made!

Template talk:Did you know

&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 00:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it took me about 4/5 edits to stop the page getting messed up!&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Retiring/Vanishing
If you read my full message I said that I want to change my username and vanish from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Right_to_Vanish). To do that the account must be unblocked so I can edit the page where the username change requests go. 86.16.135.174 (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI
I am disappointed that a high ranking Wikipedia user and a lawyer would have such fears. If one has those fears, just make a new version of a tag or an alternate tag! Some people hate tags because they think it looks "ugly". Tags encourage people to improve articles. It gets ordinary readers to edit and improve, otherwise edits are often just made by the "vandal fighters". Wikipedia is not a idol to be worshipped and not edited. Wikipedia should be like a daily driver type car. Use it, edit it, improve it. Not a museum piece that is untouched. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't be confused. You are high ranking but not that higher ranking member, NYBrad. The above is taken from ANI and refers to him Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

'cuz you are the smartest person commenting on that thread. Keep on posting. You made a very good point. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Section-editing
Hi, SGGH; I've noticed that when making edits to large pages such as the Admins' Noticeboard you don't use the automatic section feature in the edit-summary, and I was wondering whether you could consider doing so? It would make things a lot easier for those of us who review the page history to see if a particular topic has been edited since they last looked... :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  cabinet  ─╢ 16:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! (My Internet doesn't run at a speed which would make editing the whole page practical anyway...!!) ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  stannary parliament  ─╢ 17:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

My WP:AN
Well, wonderful pictures! But I have a problem.

First of all we are all voluntaries and deserve to respect each other and to explain in a normal not angry but human way our decisions which affect others. Excuse me, but I think that tit is not a crime to suspect somebody to be acting in concord with somebody else. Would you please explain to me why it should be illegal to display the finding of the sockpuppetry investigation which, although not accusatory, may be relevant for the editing of the given page? Particularly if the suspects are in the same city, as this has been proved by an administrator for the mentioned group, and in addition! always blindly agreeing with the others? I identified a group of four or six editors who avoiding sourced justifications of arguments, always agree when a consensus is asked for, mainly not about validity of some source, but particularly when an opponent is to be blocked for insisting on some specific point. First they start with insults and mockery, and then my demand for a decent communication is also taken as disturbing, and demand is filed, as now, to block me. As I can see, the custom of insulting editors is spreading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Saints_Cyril_and_Methodius) and I am convinced that a discreet warning by the administrator would suffice to calm the spirits and would help have normal discussions. Punishing, no matter which side, is probably not a solution. Instead an advice and recommendation about how to resolve the blocked situation would be, I think, reasonable solution at this point.Draganparis (talk) 14:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are so fast! Thanks. Yes, the spirits are probably calming down. The problem is that my call for decency they see as distraction. I pushed one argument in Logical fallacy which, hard as it was, frustrated one editor (Simanos), and he went then on with hard ad hominem attacks. I shouldn’t have done this in the way I did it. But people probably should be warned at least once not to call each other “layers”, “brain damaged” or similar, or not to denigrate each other intellectually or to avoid mockery. May be to be warned too not to start the discussion with a priory hate of the other. These are Wikipedia rules but they are easily forgotten. Thanks for the understanding. (Sorry for disturbing such a nice page of yours.)Draganparis (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is you keep on lying (and no, that is not too strong a word for your distortions of the truth and facts). The spirits are calming down because your antics on the talk pages of articles are being ignored and people are fed up with your proven trolling and talking to admins about you instead of trying to talk directly to you any more, which proved fruitless. The problem is that your call for decency is seen as an insult, since you are the one who did most of the indecent disruptions, we want decency too. Your behaviour is hypocritical because at the same time as trying to make us look responsible for incivility, you have the nerve to call us sock-puppets again in the very next sentence or paragraph. I'm very surprised Admins have allowed you to do this for so long. Especially since you managed to put your foot in your mouth and threaten even admins like Future who is pretty much almost anti-Greek one would say (no offence meant). The talk pages were doing fine I might add, until you showed up with your spam and trolling, they were pretty quiet before. I suggest you take your own advice and probably apologize to a few people before you are blocked like your other socks. Simanos (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Somerset CCC
You've obviously got a fair few pics of matches at the County Ground; do you get to many of the games? I haven't seen anyone with a laptop connected to Wikipedia there so far this year :P  Harrias  talk 15:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh - one of those things I guess! Yeah, I got to pretty much all the one-day and Twenty20 games last year, and should manage the same this year; know I have to miss a couple of them though.  Hopefully will get to some more of the championship games too this year, even if just popping in for the last hour or so.  What do you do during the games then?  Harrias  talk  16:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And you're the current leader of the Law Enforcement wikiproject. I have an idea ya know.  You're not one of those that spends half their time stood by the Old Pavilion behind the bowlers arm are ya?  Harrias  talk  18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I would have done too, but I don't remember that, so presumably I wasn't there at the time! Never know, sometime this year we'll probably nod heads at each other without even realising! :P  Harrias  talk 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Resident Evil Gaiden
Hello! The protection you applied to the Resident Evil Gaiden article's expired, so would you mind weighing-in on which revision  should remain? I've also added a comment on its talk page summing things up, at least as I see them. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, no sooner has page protection lifted than this user's gone absolutely nuts. Since you were involved in the most recent incident, it might be helpful if you checked-out the current report. Splatterhouse5 (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Draganparis again...
I really hoped I could let it go... He was banned for some days, he retracted, promised to be good and... These are his first contributions as answers to me... He still employs his Cato tactics...



(I will use third person as long as GK1973 would not offer an excuse for the previous mockery and insults)



The above is a reminder to "the Administrators" to my uncivil and threatening post here :





''I am grateful to GK1973 for once rather unoffending comment. (I still demand GK for the excuses for previous insults and mockery. I HAVE NEVER INSULTED HIM!)''

My case was abandoned, not resolved after DP's ban for leagal threats. Now he is back and as problematic as always. Everyone writes an uncivil word now and then, I have no problem with the occasional aggressor, especially in a heated article, as is the case many times. But this person works with a plan. Even when there is absolutely no provocation, no heat, he keeps spamming these comments against me in this most inappropriate way. You are welcome to read through our little discussion there if you like to get a more complete picture, although it again edges on surrealism, with DP presenting sources he has not read, counting words, forgetting his own arguments... Please advise... GK (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess that my fears are now redundant. It seems he has quit for good... Thx anyways. See if you can semi protect M&C or something. Just check the recent attacks to see if it is necessary. GK (talk) 01:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong after all... Just take a look at the discussion page of M&C, your page (you have taken care of that as I see) and user Cplakidas's page who made the mistake to comment... Please consider indefing the two IPs spamming again... GK (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Before you worry about a reporting user not providing diffs...
...why not click on the reported user's contributions? Şłџğģő 20:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I'd assume because the reporting user should have read the very clear notices, "Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting," and, "Also, please provide links and diffs here to involved pages and editors." ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  CANUKUS  ─╢ 20:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And furthermore, the report made a generic comment about the user's contributions as a whole, and despite looking through the diffs I did not find anything that warranted admin attention, only WP:MOS revision needed. Nothing was required that only admins could do. SGGH ping! 20:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On one hand, a ten second stroll through Twyfords's contributions revealed, to me anyway, exactly what ProveYouAreHuman was talking about. On the other hand, this conversation is moot, isn't it? Şłџğģő  20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well we'll agree to disagree won't we? Though yes, prior knowledge has revealed the possible sockificationism anyway. Good catch. SGGH ping! 20:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Add new item in other language
Hello, I noticed that you tagged this one for speedy deletion as a test page. While I agree that it looks like something that should disappear quickly, I'd recommend having the translators at WP:PNT have a look at it. Just because a page is written in a foreign language it's not to be speedily deleted (unless it's a copy of another Wikipedia article). I've moved the page to a proper name and listed it for translation, albeit with a hint that looks quite promotional and non-notable. Our translators can then re-apply a CSD tag if need be.

And now for something completely different, I do agree with you that 2nd Battalion, 18th Field Artillery Regiment is non-notable and should go. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it turned out you were right to tag the Farsi language thing, it was just some mock-up of V-Ray. I've fixed that now. De728631 (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw the images and thought it was a test page or some sort, and the titled suggested the creator had pressed the wrong button, like when a new article is called "edit this page to begin"! Cheers, SGGH ping! 18:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Clydesdale Bank 40
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you revisit this issue?
User talk:Hm2k and his reply to your nicely worded warning. He also reverted your change. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 23:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

GK (GK1973; Miskin?)
The editor GK removed another Draganparis’ civility appeal edit in spite of your warning. Is he mocking at you now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And what ever happened to ignoring and moving on? You don't seem to be able to leave well enough alone either, you had to put the comment there in order for it to be removed. I'm tired of the two of you bandying my name around as a weapon for your soapbox battleground. Ignore each other, removing the article from your watchlist, and stop following each other around. SGGH ping! 17:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an amusing argument here. Please do not take it personally. I do not believe it, but it appears, I am afraid, from what you say that in your eyes calling for some decency may be inadequate. At least you imply that it is definitely worst then calling somebody a liar. Is it really so? Consider the following.

1.	One editor says that I am laying (about what? is not clear; I am even not editing these pages any more), 2.	you, who, I assume, supervises the page, do not react,

3.	I write a short note and declare that to say to me that I am lying is primitive. This expression can not be contested: the educated people would say in similar (but more adequate) circumstances that somebody is "not saying the truth".

4.	yet the other editor (to whom you - I presume - in the past passively permitted to insult me and who was removing parts of my edits when he wanted to ruin the decency of my edits - you discovered this and I appreciate this) removes these edits now,

5.	I finally complain TO YOU at your talk page and not on that particular page - to avoid conflicts

What you do then?

6.	You are warning only me?!

I would be interested to know what kind of moral law you think you are applying here, please? I suggest that you start warning the party which breaches moral rules and not the party which is offended by these breaches. This would be better practical rule to follow. (Draganparis) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.89.18.134 (talk) 13:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Caffeine
Thanks, but this morning I'm drinking tea with milk. Even though I'm an American. :) -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, are you Belgian?
If so, I must say that I love Belgium.

Belgian administrator Fram blocked and you have reinstated the block after someone unblocked.

I wrote on that person's page...

There appears to be consensus that the unblock was premature, and that your account is being used for sockpuppetry. I have re-blocked you for two reasons, 1) I don't want to see any disruption to Wikipedia, and 2) I don't want you editing out enough rope to hang yourself - you seem to have the uncanny knack of talking yourself into trouble, rightly deserved or not. I don't intend to let that happen, to see you talk yourself into being banned. Give ANI the rest of the night to come to some decisions, and then it will get dealt with. In the mean time, don't sock or anything silly. SGGH ping! 20:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a seemingly thoughtful message. Blocks should come with an explanation. However, the last two sentences are inconsistent with the block length. The block length is indefinite. The likely event is that the ANI thread will lose interest and this person will be forever blocked. If there was truly concern that this user will hang herself/himself, a 24-48 hour block would serve the same purpose but not be subject to leaving the user permanently blocked. Others know more history, I do not. Reason #2 is inappropriate to cause blocking. Reason #1 is a standard reason for blocking. It's a better reason than blocking for punishment. However, there is no clear explanation of the original disruption. The ANI post says there was no disruption. Was there vandalism? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! It is nice that you took the time to write an explanation. Can you address the question raised?

On another area, in less than 10 days will be the 25th anniversary of the Heysel Stadium disaster. Should this be on the main page of Wikipedia? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No I'm not from Belgium, though I think I have been there. In answer to your first question, indefinite doesn't mean forever, it just means of an unspecified length or a length to be determined. I certainly don't intend for the situation to be unresolved at ANI, and once he has had a bit of a break to allow ANI to work, the user can post unblock requests addressing any issues ANI raises. I can't address them myself but I'm watching the page and will poke ANI if nothing happens.
 * In answer to your second question, the user appears to have outed himself as a sock, and the issues that resulted in the first block appear unresolved when unblock was granted.
 * In answer to your third question, what's the Heysel Stadium disaster? SGGH ping! 21:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You have a picture of Gand/Gent/Ghent on your user page. That in Belgium.  What's Heysel?  You provided the link.  It was a very tragic event.  As far as indefinite not being permanent, it is permanent.  Of course, if you promise to re-visit the issue, just let the user know.  Otherwise, she/he will assume indefinite=permanent.  I am not sticking up for her/him.  I am just trying to make WP more civil and a kinder place. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have let them know. You're right I did look at the link when I had finished replying above. I had forgotten where the church was, I just like the progression. I know you are acting out of good intentions, we all try to :) SGGH ping! 21:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

98.204.183.125
You blocked IP editor 98.204.183.125 in March for one month for racist contributions and vandalism (ANI case here). The editor is back, editing the same article, inserting the same racist material. They've been brought up at AN/I four times before (1, 2, 3 4), blocked four times in the last year, and warned on their talk page over a dozen times. Think it might be possible to just perma-ban the static IP editor? ← George talk


 * Thanks for opening that SGGH. Sorry for the late reply, was out of town over the weekend. Cheers. ← George talk 08:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ireland
Hi SGGH. I left a note on the BE talk page relating to your edit, which I modified. . Also, regarding your Indochina edit, please note that in the cited text for that sentence, the author of the text explicitly refers to Macmillan's concerns of a "British Algeria" (his quotes), he does not mention Indochina. If you have a reference which says he was also concerned about not repeating Indochina, that's fine, but otherwise we shouldn't be attributing concerns to him that we do not know he actually had. Cheers. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Knight block
Did you check his block log before applying this latest block? The reason I ask is that normally edit warring blocks escalate over time as opposed to being reduced. I also note that this user has never edited a talk page, suggesting a rejection of the fundamental processes underlying Wikipedia editing and a hard headed resolve to force to forge ahead without taking other's opinions or contributions into consideration. A three hour block does not seem likely to have the desired effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * T'was in fact precisely why I gave a three hour block at first, to prevent immediate disruption until another user or two weighs in to review the situation and come up with a more appropriate long term block/solution - though I did expect it to appear at the WP:ANI thread. If you want to lend your voice to the proposition of a longer block at ANI, please join us there. :) SGGH ping! 16:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Your message
The problem with Malke and I began with a content dispute on the Michael Collins article involving the Irish Catholic category. From there, it spun out of control. Malke's repeated claims of innocence do not ring true when you see the messages he has left on my talk page and the multiple accusations of anti-Irish and anti-Catholic bigotry being the motivation of editors opposed to placing Collins in said category. As I said, to Gwen Gale, I recognize the mistakes I have made in this dispute, but Malke is hardly innocent of blame. I hope that answers your question. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 23:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never attacked Republican Jacobite and I have never claimed he was Anti-Catholic, etc. These attacks against me deserve a block. Malke  2010  23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

personal attacks
I have posted the personal attacks by RepublicanJacobite on the AN/I. An admin resolved it claiming I was forum shopping. I reposted the complaint. These are egregious personal attacks and they should not be allowed to go unaddressed. Malke 2010  23:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cheonan sinking
Thanks for the notice. I intend to keep a weather eye on this one. Mjroots (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle for Hanoi
Hold on, I disagree with you when you revert edits. North Vietnam already exist when it declared independence on 2 Sep, 1945. The sentence "Viet-Minh expelled to the countryside" should be place in the Territorial changes section. Why the hell did you remove the categories and interwiki? Also, you only leave "Hanoi" in the territorial changes section, that dones't prove anything. It has to be "France captures Hanoi". Moreover, this battle was the start of the First Indochina War, why the hell did you removed that sentence? Qajar (talk) 02:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, stop cursing at me - I don't respond to that. Secondly, North Vietnam's existence is debatable considering it was only in government since 1954, and although recognised in March 1946 was promptly evicted in November, but I have no objections if you want to put it back in. Thirdly, I removed Hanoi from territorial changes (I have done it completely now) because the insurgency rose up in Hanoi, but it was never captured as far as I can tell, so it was never taken back. Lastly, you are correct, I removed the category by accident, I have replaced it. But don't come cursing to my page again or I'll ignore you. SGGH ping! 09:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

User: Mundilfari
Hi, I noticed that you have posted on talk page about his deletion of pop culture sections without discussion, attempts to wikify or sufficiently detailed edit summaries. You may be interested that I have brought this to the attention of the admins here and may wish to make comment. I am not making any request for banning / blocking, merely that someone gets him to understand that it is not good practice to continue to delete sections other editors have clearly indicated have at least some intrinsic value. Fenix down (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's where I saw it. I went to his page as per your request for admin action, and then reported back to ANI what I did :) SGGH ping! 12:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I didn't see your post on the admin board straight away. Hopefully, he'll read it and take note, it's becoming a bit of an irritant. Fenix down (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Agh... Yes, I saw the report, acted on it, then completely forgot to update it :P Orderinchaos 11:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work
You should be a diplomat. Very well done. Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I thank you for adding the cautionary note about being "slightly wary". My own experiences and repeated broken promises have shown there is much to justify such concerns. Jusdafax  15:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thankfully, a positive outcome has been reached. I am understandably interested in what happens of the new few weeks, but I wish the editor better fortunes in the future. I doubt such a result could have been obtained without the actions of you guys and those at ANI and elsewhere, also. SGGH ping! 23:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, none of you had anything to do with it. Several editors and two other admins were kind enough to give me advice and suggestions. Malke  2010  16:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SGGH, since this is your talk page, I will make my comment to you. Malke's seeming complete inability to walk away from disputes even after repeated blocks, and obsessive need get the last word, as plainly demonstrated here, does not, as I note above, bode well. Jusdafax  17:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be, but hopefully she will be shaken out of it. Malke, I told you you need to modify your attitude a little. Mind not to start antagonising people again. A good rule: if you think it think you are being even-handed, sweeten the comment two-fold and you are probably amiable enough to make it through. Mind the POV. SGGH ping! 23:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

M&C revisited
Could you please semi protect article Saints Cyril and Methodius? IPs persistently vandalize the article more and more methodically... I think it deserves to be protected for an indefinite amount of time. GK (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK! GK (talk) 08:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Operation Valentine (1948)
Hi. Can you explain what's going on with this page ? You created it on the 21st, and added a large body of printed references. You then tagged it as a hoax, then flagged it for proposed deletion, with the justification that "Contains no references that actually mention it existing, zero hits on JSTOR, google scholar/book/web, nor in any of the several books listed below - suspect that it does not exist, or does not exist in the form it presents itself here" - did you create the article without checking the references ? If so, why not ? If not, why did you create the page in the first place ? I've removed the PROD tag - you can take it to WP:AFD if you want, but I'm slightly confused and concerned about the circumstances in which the article was created. Regards. Claritas (talk) 13:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello there. I created the article on trust in the knowledge of editors who have goner before, as it was a red link on the campaign infobox for the First Indochina War. All printed sources are for the conflict in general and on the background of each operation. However subsequent research into expanding the article from "this was an operation of the conflict" has revealed nothing - leading me to wonder if perhaps it does not in fact exist. The article would thus qualify for a PROD or AfD, as I could not CSD my own creation when it is an article like this. I had already asked at WT:MILHIST however got very little response, so a PROD or AfD will generate enough interest, save a possibly made-up topic from remaining in the 'pedia. It is a situation I have not come across before, so took the best course I could think of. Regards, SGGH ping! 14:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally would have taken it to WP:AFD, but I understand now. Thanks for explaining. I'll start a WP:AFD debate now. Claritas (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks my friend. SGGH ping! 14:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Operation Valentine (1948)
I have nominated Operation Valentine (1948), 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/Operation Valentine (1948). 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. Claritas (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for lending a hand at AN/I and at my talk. AN/I is one of my least favorite places to be, but it makes me happy that folks like you are keeping an eye out. Awickert (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)