User talk:Tracer9999/1

Blu-ray project
Inviting you to join Blu-ray Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Blu-ray--w_tanoto 14:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

BD profiles mandatory storage
Your position has been refuted in the talk page. WP:3R) --Ray andrew 00:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

BD relese count
If it is your contention that discontinued titles should be counted, perhaps you should find a reliable source that does not subtract off discontinued titles. --Ray andrew 21:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

2-1 comparison
I agree that it is important information, but just quoting it alone in each of the articles becomes a question of selective statistics. I think you would agree of all the stats Blu-ray fairs best on the YTD disc sales comparison. --Ray andrew 00:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments for merging BD / HD Comparison info
Please can you revert your identical comments on both the HD and BD talk pages and re-post it on the Comparison thread (as I originally asked)? That way others can comment too. Thanks. Peter Torr (MSFT) 23:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Blu-ray HD/DVD Advice?
Hi, I was looking at the Blu-Ray / HDDVD articles and I noticed you edit them alot, so I was just wondering, for a person with a DVD collection now, should I switch to Blu Ray or get an HD DVD player? Or should I not bother upgrading yet at all? Just wondering your opinion. Do you work for electronics sales or with computers btw? Thanks in advance. --MMX 06:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey again, I really appreciate your advice. I do own an HDTV, but it's an older model (2003) and tops out at 1080i. And my digital cable -- besides the high def stations -- completely stinks, which is why I tend to watch disc media or internet media. But still, regular DVD and just about everything available to download is standard definition, or 480/720p tops. My friend has a 1080p HDTV, and seeing it used for some of the latest titles in HD gaming really blew me away. But basically though, what I got out of your advice was that I'll wait for now. The funny thing is, that's what I said last year around the holidays. Maybe I'll ask again next year! Thanks again. --MMX 19:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blu-ray DRM and security


Do you have any sort of background in computer security? Because if you did, you'd know why allowing a disc to run native code is very bad. Yes it's an unsourced claim but I doubt you'll be able to find an impartial person with the proper security and software engineering credentials to refute it. –Andyluciano 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistake on California Proposition 11
You mistakingly put the SF Chronicle as being opposed to Prop 11 on your page. The "source" was an open forum article published by the Chronicle but holding the opposition position of the newspaper's editorial board, whose stance was published the same day. I fixed it but I'd ask you to be a bit more careful about these things next time... political issues being important and a major newspaper editorial holds a lot of sway. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ukraine Flu
if you take 20 seconds look at his site, he's been published in NYT and a dozen other major papers. How many have you been published in?- oh, here, where you sit for hours on your computer and diddle what other people do. He's the only one talking about what is becoming a truism- that there's some serious extreme epidemic going on in Ukraine- which isn't really true, since I'm here also. That makes it more than a personal site. And your careless deletions are close to vandalism as you bleed every bit of color and life out of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.192.219.4 (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bill O'Reilly
I do have a problem with the page. Wikipedia pages aren't PR campaigns. They aren't fan sites. I notice that you do not include any of the documented, cited controversys on the man, and simply use the page to show off "viewing figures" and highlights.

Can I ask whY?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm rather new to the site, and have realised that I've misunderstood how pages are constructed quite a lot. I actually have no problem with the man (I can't even say I've ever watched any of his shows, or even really know what he does to that great a detail - he's not well known over here). However, I was reading about Fox News on the site (again, we don't get it here), and saw a whole inglorious section on the controversies of the man. So I wasn't sure why none of it was on his page? Bearing in mind, I'm assuming the sources are strong enough to get it on that page. So why not his personal page?

I just have an interest in wikipedia in general, and how it works. As a site, I can see how it could possibly be open to user bias, and censorship - a tooing and throwing of rival edits in both directions- but I would have thought that Bill O'Reilly has said a few controversial things is probably a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

please read edit comments in future

 * This is an ongoing article, and it's impossible to not have overlaps in editing. I assume you're acting in good faith as opposed to being partisan. Let's stick to actual facts, shall we? Flatterworld (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tracer9999, I posted links to original source material (actual videos) of the debate and Sean Hannity's interview with John McCormack in which McCormack said what I said he said. For you to claim some spin doctor's opinion trumps actual video of the people involved...no. It doesn't. If you try to turn this into an edit war, I will report this. Flatterworld (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

lol.. Im not the one deleting credibly sourced materials...your sources are not valid wikipedia sources.. try reading the guidelines.. -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * added from discussion on Flatterworld's talk page:
 * added from discussion on Flatterworld's talk page:

I certainly am acting in good faith.. just source your articles using not using partison political groups that are routinely considered not a valid source by wikipedia and any speculation (rather then what was said) of what her thoughts were and why she said them and thier is no problem.. I only revert based on wikipedia policies. as Im sure youve noticed.. alot of your scott brown changes have not been reverted..-Tracer9999 (talk) 19:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yet you left in two earlier footnotes: one didn't even reference the topic, and the other was from some unknown blogger. Just because Fox News insisted on leaving out her following words, and inserting 'terrorists' earlier, and calling it a 'quote' - that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to repeat that error without question. (Scott Brown? I added that he's running against Coakley and Kennedy - you find that contentious or arguable?!) Flatterworld (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

added from coakley talk page

Under controversies, in the part where Coakley was talking about al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and the US role in Afghanistan, there are only two sources that actually mention Coakley (apart from a user comment on another): the Media Matters article, and the article from the Boston Herald. The Media Matters article alone claims that she was talking about al-Qaeda rather than the Taliban; the Boston Herald simply says that she was talking about the terrorists (which, under US designation would include both groups). The problem here is that the interpretation used in the article is from Media Matters, which designates itself as a progressive news organization, akin to MoveOn.org or the Huffington Post. I would tend to think that this violates the Neutral point of view requirement, as Media Matters makes no attempt to claim neutrality. A better way to address this topic would be to list the whole quote, give background and reaction from both sides, and let readers make up their own minds. Kkeurope (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

stop playing games here.. this is a encyclopedia not a playground... -Tracer9999 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Michael Hammerschlag
Hi Tracer! Just letting you know that I restored Michael Hammerschlag, an article that you proposed for deletion, due to a request at requests for undeletion. Feel free to nominate the article for deletion at AfD if you feel it is appropriate. Cheers,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 23:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see a deletion discussion has been opened here, cheers!   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Danica undo
I thought it was irresponsible to delete an entire section without building consensus or even reviewing the talk page so I undid it. How about you share your opinion on the talk page? Hutcher (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Influenza A virus subtype H5N1
regarding your note on that article's talkpage:yes i think someone made a mistake when adding a reference and brought the table into the ref section, i'm surprised someone didn't spot that earlier thanks Tom B (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Seattle Children's Theatre
I have nominated Seattle Children's Theatre, 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/Seattle Children's Theatre. 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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixation?
Thank you for your message Tracer. For the record Tayfun King is not a "blogger". He is a BBC television reporter and producer. I do find your assertion rather odd that anyone writing an article about a person would suggest a "fixation". Does this imply that all contributors to Wikipedia have fixations on whatever subjects they choose to write about? In creating an article about Tayfun King it seemed sensible and practical to add references to some other subject pages in Wikipedia that he has reported on. Please check those links which either feature an archived television report or a written news report. If after watching or reading the reports you feel they are not relevant or do not offer valuable information to users of Wikipedia, then you should delete them. I do appreciate your feedback regarding the article which is a work in progress. You may be able to offer advice to clarify whether you believe BBC News is a reliable third party source? And would removing external links to the BBC, where some news reports are archived after broadcast on television, not be counter-productive to establishing notability? Maybe those links should be moved to the "References" section rather than "External Links"? TVinfosource 20:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

MKULTRA, Pont-St.-Esprit
I might suggest you read Albarelli's book, A TERRIBLE MISTAKE, before summarily relegating it to the "Conspiracy Theories" section of the MKULTRA article. Though not particularly well-edited, it really is an exhaustive treatment of the subject. It is also well-sourced and footnoted.

I note that reviews of the book have been excellent. I will attempt to locate reviews by major publications, though I suspect such reviews will be unlikely. I was initially skeptical that Albarelli could prove the Pont-St.-Esprit connection, however he convinced me that this connection rises beyond mere "conspiriacy theory."Apostle12 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

One review. Not a major publication, yet not "fringe" either:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melissa-roddy/a-terrible-mistake-hp-alb_b_485774.html

Apostle12 (talk) 20:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Another:

http://www.rense.com/general89/50s.htm

This one also mentions the Sandoz connection. Apostle12 (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tracer9999, and I appreciate your perspective. Regarding Pont-St.-Esprit being an "act of war," I don't think so. Please keep in mind that we conducted similar experiments here in the United States during the late 1940s, one of which had to do with spraying an aerosolized mixture containing a rather rare baterium over the entire San Francisco Bay Area; many illnesses, hospitalizations, at least one death from pneumonia were documented as a result of that experiment. And we were hardly shy about dosing U.S. civilians and military personnnel alike with LSD and other substances without their knowledge or consent. Our intelligence people played it fast and loose in Germany, Italy and France during the late 1940s and early 1950s; I happen to know this because my uncle was part of various operations. DeGaulle was incensed about our activities in France (I suspect they knew all about the true nature of Pont-St.-Esprit), which was a major reason behind his decision to eject American troops by the mid-1960s. John Grant Fuller wrote the first book about Pont-St.-Esprit, DAY OF ST. ANTHONY'S FIRE, intially arguing it was caused by ergot poisoning. His book was considered definitive for decades, however he came to believe that what happened at Pont-St.-Esprit was intentional, and before his death he concluded that the ingestion of massive doses of LSD were likely involved. The ingestion of massive doses of LSD is especially likely given that Albarelli's sources report that the LSD was administered both by aerosolized spray (which Olson was involved in) and by tampering with foodstuffs; doses in the milligrams would not be unlikely under circumstances of multiple dosing. Fuller knew from the beginning that there had never before been such a widespread and severe case of ergot poisoning, however he could not have known that LSD might have been involved when he wrote his book. So I think the CIA's Project SPAN ("Pont" means "bridge" or "span") and its connection to Pont-St.-Esprit is highly plausible, though difficult to prove conclusively, like much of the rest of MKULTRA. Apostle12 (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC

Robosapien: Rebooted
The article Robosapien: Rebooted was rewritten in its entirety. See my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robosapien: Rebooted. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Comment
Tracer, please do not be offended that I removed your comment from my talk page. I have the marijuana map on my talk page, and saw the comment you posted there, therefore I did not need the comment archived on my talk page. I do not remove all negative comments and keep all positive comments on my talk page--for example, I kept comments letting me know some of articles I started were going to be deleted, but I deleted several comments of people thanking me for work I did on others. I simply use my talk page for comments I think I will need for future reference.

Your comment IS noted, and I do plan on looking at the map again, although actually, I am not sure I am the one to correct it. You see, I tried twice to correct this map unsuccessfully, so apparently I do not know how to update the map properly. I then asked Thegreyanomaly to take a look at the map, and he was able to correct it. Someone who has more experience updating maps will need to update the decriminalization map, as I had difficulty doing so. I went ahead and added the map back to the articles you deleted it from, as it is better to simply update the map itself than edit many articles due to one incorrect state. I will also respond to the comment you made on the WikiProject Cannabis talk page. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

iPhone censorship
I agree, it's a "well duh!" issue. Originally it said self-censored, but did not specify by whom, until a red-link editor came along and removed the self- part. I added the whole thing back, plus "by the uploader," to make it unambiguous, but you're also right that it makes it so obvious it's awkward. Having written way too much about something so simple, I like the way it was: self-censored, period. But I'll let you make the edit. HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Mercury (automobile)
Thanks for catching my mistake. I wondered how Fords could be 16 percent of the company's sales. I should have looked more carefully.

I hope you'll be pleased with how I've resolved the other problems. If not, then I'll just have to accept it. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that works. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 22:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

thank u i'l respect your words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.106.59 (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding broken english edits
I find that every single edit you make on United Airlines is virtually unreadable and grammatically incorrect. While I understand and respect the fact that english is obviously your second.. (oops sorry just read your talk page post..) third language.. it really doesn't work well for for an ENGLISH LANGUAGE encyclopedia. It makes a ton more work for everyone else, makes the articles difficult to read and unfortunately does nothing to add to the value of the encyclopedia in such a fashion. Your posts should not need to be translated by another editor after every one you make. May I ask that you consider updating the version of wikipedia that is in your native language, as Im sure saying what you need to say in the language you actually speak and write in would help the encyclopedia of that language immensely. Please understand I am not trying to be rude or insensitive, however, I find that not one of your edits is free from spelling or grammar issues. If you do wish to continue updating the english version of wikipedia, may I suggest you take an english course, that is not just about speaking but includes writing in english. Again, please don't take my post the wrong way, Im just being practical here. -Tracer9999 (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I make inconvenience to you and sorry my poor English. I try to post edit to discussion page or ask roommate for helps. My roommate was former editor on Wikipedia, so he can able to helps me. Thanks you for understanding and point out some difficulty. --B767-500 (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So, basically, I can appricating your solutions, but reject to complying due to I have some difficult issues. I prefer to make edit on Wikipedia due to it is free tutoring for English. My income not enough to pay EXPENSIVE out-of-state tuition (this state have bad cost structure for education). And because sending money to overseas family for support. Also, I could not dealt with time issues, and if hired private tutor (which also EXPENSIVE), it can takes away time from jobs (which I currently working 2.5 jobs). So, I decide to use Wikipedia for free English lessons, because I can write some edits and other editor can teach me correctly English. Thanks for your understandings. --B767-500 (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats not the way it works. wikipedia is not your personal free english instructor. If thats your intent. you'll quickly find you account suspended or banned. Go on the net and download some english software instead. Im sure there are a million programs out there made for that purpose...or play with google translate. To attempt to degrade every article you edit and inconvenience every other user so you can get a free english lesson is not only unethical but its extremely selfish, I mean seriously, try thinking about other people for once... people, who don't wish to work for you for free or read their articles in broken english. -Tracer9999 (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I change mind and can accepting solutions. I forgot to be mention something, I didn't just using Wikipedia for tutoring but I like to do some writings and I know most HTML codes and Wiki syntax, so I can improve those formatting issues. So, I do two methods for improve edit and making you happy. I ask roommate for help (which I mention before) and sometimes I can use it translate.google.com which can allows me to copy-paste translation, which can be big improvements. I didn't want to get suspend or banned due to I like Wiki communities. Thank you. --B767-500 (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Editor review transcluded
Hello there. Sometime in the past, you requested an editor review, but you forgot to transclude it onto the main page. Thus, you may have been wondering why no one gave you any reviews. I have now transcluded the request, so please check back in a while for reviews. During the meantime, please consider reviewing another editor. Thanks. If you have any questions, feel free to message me. Netalarm talk 23:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Fiorina Photo
The photo of Carly Fiorina I added was from flickr, the author of it from flickr has the date as 2007, however this is incorrect since the photo is of her at a campaign event with signs showing her Senate candidacy. The other photo of her is from 2004 before she battled cancer and it looks nothing like Fiorina as of 2010, that is why I thought the 2010 photo was better despite being lower quality. - Aaaccc (talk) 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Fiorina's Career
Carly Fiorina always mentions her early career as a temp at Kelly Services because it was the first time she worked at HP. Essentially, she sees herself as having worked her way up from secretary to CEO. If she thinks it's important, then it is certainly important enough to go into her biographical sketch. In the entries for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, their summer jobs are discussed. Such things are fair game for anyone who got an early start in their careers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawerchuk (talk • contribs) 21:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please accept my profuse apologies
After your endless bragging earlier about your tremendous number of edits and editing experience, insulting everyone else, it simply didn't occur to me you could possibly be responsible for the creation of such a slipshod, last-minute article as your Jim McKenna effort. Obviously I greatly overestimated your abilities. Flatterworld (talk)

Lol.. don't you have a template to edit or something :) -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits regarding COICA
Hi, I've noticed that you've posted identical content in the article for every member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I'm sure that this is an important issue, but it seems excessive to copy the same content into 17 different articles. To add three paragraphs to each of these articles, most of which cover long senate careers, for one committee vote seems undue weight. How about limiting the content to the articles for the sponsors of the bill? Feeeshboy (talk) 00:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Samsung Group
Hello!

This is to let you know that there is a discussion at Talk:Samsung Group regarding the Michael Breen lawsuit and alleged price fixing that you may be interested in.--5 albert square (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong Person. He was not paricipated in Michael Breen lawsuit content. 660gd4qo (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Malware changes to browser articles
I saw you deleted all my changes, calling the quoted sources unreliable (in a way). I don't want to start a war on any of those pages, so I thought I'd ask here - why can't there be a note in the articles about the possible ill repute of the tests instead of deleting the content completely? As a counterpoint I offer up the example of how, in the IE9 article, a Mozilla engineer (who is also clearly not neutral) made statements about IE9's performance that were allowed to be kept in (in a point/counterpoint way). Shouldn't the articles in question instead include both sides of the argument instead of being removed completely? 87Fan (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with that as long as its clearly stated that microsoft financed the testing and that the version of chrome listed is several versions back and that questions have been raised as to the tests accuracy. The probability that microsoft paid for the test and just happened to score a whopping 99% is obviously suspect and quite frankly amazing. looking up the article it seems to be widly believed to be skewed or cherry picked on microsofts behalf. but if you feel its accurate and choose to add it, I have no problem if those points I mentioned are clearly stated so people know there may be a conflict of interest. However, you may wish to add a note on the talk page for the articles to try to get a consensus on what other editors feel is the best course of action, as they may revert you. However, if stated clearly. I will not. as if it is accurate it should be there. hope this helps -Tracer9999 (talk) 21:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This helps, thank you. 87Fan (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No budget film
Hi Tracer9999. I removed the PROD you put on this page. Listcruft gets a lot worse than this, and merging some of the material into low budget film might be better than deletion.  Them From  Space  08:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

good idea -Tracer9999 (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Detroit 1-8-7
You reverted a massive re-write i did in which i expanded and organised the entire article because i removed a source that is not really reliable for what you want to have it used as because it is a person's speculations. Then you added a citation needed tag to something which had reference in that which i wrote and you undid. Kindly stop reverting everyone who takes out the speculation from Bill @ TVBTN. delirious &  lost  ☯ ~hugs~  9:52, 29 January 2011, last Saturday (5 days ago) (UTC−7)
 * I realise that you removed the above note but i am adding it back in as the matter continues on the episode list for the show. You removed scheduled, sourced air dates for the 14th and 15th episodes. and again  You accept the reference, the title, the director, and the writer(s) of the episodes. You even accept my short summaries of the episodes. Yet you insist upon removing the scheduled air dates. If they change i make note of it. If there is some notable reason for the schedule change i not only leave the only info in comment but add to the article proper mention of why the schedule change was done. It is almost as though you are targetting my edits to the main article and the episode list. I created or/and wrote a great portion of each article. Every bit of my contributions are meticulously referenced - i have spent more time reading about this show than i have spent watching it. None of the references are fake. Please stop reverting things just because.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 21:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * there is a response on my talk page from Tracer9999 missing from this sequence. Look at the reference some time. The reference contained the updated schedule. The old reference for the original schedule was retained in a comment with the note that the episode schedule had changed so anyone editing could know of both the new and the old reference. If someone doesn't read the note or the dates of the references but tells me they are inappropriate then yes i am most unimpressed. Own the article? No. Have malicious intent? One would think the creator and a main contributor would not be adding fake info if she is trying to get them to GA and FL respectively. Crystal ball policy applies to things unsourced and unlikely to happen. ABC updates their schedule faster than i keep up with it. Those are the times when other people come in and essentially let me know i need to go look because they change something. I looked and you know what i found. ABC had still the 14th & 15th episodes scheduled for the 8th and 15th of February. That would be so not covered by the Crystal ball policy. As for targetting, you revert my contributions. You did it again. The episodes are referenced - it is not original research. Both of you are wrong. Try reading the references some time. Where do you think the titles, writers, directors come from? They come from the references. So do the air dates. Accordingly i have again reverted your edits for being disruptive.  delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 05:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 *  redirecting discussion to Talk:List of Detroit 1-8-7 episodes as other parties are being queried / invited. delirious  &amp;  lost  ☯ ~hugs~ 06:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Casual (rapper)
Please note that this article, which was deleted by your PROD, has now been restored after being contested at DRV. You may wish to AFD it. Stifle (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Samsung Group
Thank you for your constructive feedback on the inclusion of the Samsung automatic sentry gun - I find this information about the space in which Samsung is active much more informative than for instance the acquisition of Rollei which they already sold again. In the main Samsung Group article there is no mentioning of the production of artillery or shooting robots. So do you think the following sources are enough for putting it to criticism: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6736130.ece (The Times) www.naturalnews.com/021248.html http://andrewgibsondefence.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/should-killer-robots-be-banned-publisher-leftfootforward-org/ http://singularityhub.com/2010/07/25/armed-robots-deployed-by-south-korea-in-demilitarized-zone-on-trial-basis/ http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/robot-warriors-spotted-on-dmz/ Or as an alternative it should be mentioned in the section describing their activities. Smint83 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Playa Fly
You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Casual (rapper)
Back on 17 January 2011 you put a PROD on Casual (rapper). I deleted the article, but following a request I userfied it, and the article has now been re-created. You may like to consider taking it to WP:AfD if you still think it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Grandmaster Caz
You proposed deletion of Grandmaster Caz back in January, and I deleted it. Your PROD reason was "notability - unsourced - wholly original research by fan". A user has now re-created the article. You may wish to take it to AfD if you still think it should be deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)