Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Paul J Moss

I also refactored the residual comment to here, in fairness to all the other comments.. moza 06:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I refactored some comments from the AFD page to improve readability. Stifle 11:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment Copies of this page are at Paul C C Moss, Paul z Moss and Paul x Moss. These probably need to be merged or deleted once the vote is over. - SimonLyall 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I placed a prod notice on one the page that has this user name, and made the appropriate request for speedy delete.Perstwhile 07:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * well to be technically correct, they are not copies, two of them had prod notices as per standard procedure, and will be deleted as per the standard procedure, unless anyone objects. I requested clean-up but thats not as easy as it seems.moza 11:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * agree, but why the doubt about the outcome? curiousmoza 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

ok now this comment is at the top, is that going to be moved as well? whats the point? the discussion is about a real article about a real person... all this editing is about to vanish into thin air... it clearly isnt consensus when there is no discussion, just repeated moving..


 * Please note:

Comment ohh I get it: you can put comments at the top if it supports your POV, but if not then they get mercilessly transferred to the bottom. as expected, the level of interest has waned from almost nil to almost less than nil. now its a silly edit war of no consequence. moza 202.0.40.53 06:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * how about we agree to date order with last entry at the top? now that might be a bit innovative, and diffferent, but it could be clearly stated at the top of the project page..moza 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it"

There is apparently only a single user interested in more than a superficial discussion of the objective facts: (comment moved back to User talk:Mozasaur) Ziggurat 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * that wrecks the flow of interaction and makes the whole thing more difficult to understand, and denys the very thing thats suppossed to happen here; discussion forming consensus, almost time to give up that idea. moza 11:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * yes and I agree about the POV re adding inaccurate information, except that in my case the information on the added pages (articles) was exact and accurate, a reproduction of existing information, and although available to be altered, it was unlikely at the time. It may appear as something else but thats all it is, appearance, and as long as no-one claims notability, (unlikely) the articles can be deleted by an admin, and I am about to request that right now. People make errors on wiki, and I make errors all over the place, often, especially when using my laptop with pad, as i do for 90+% of my wiki edits. so i am constantly fixing even my own stuff, the problem is those added articles can not be deleted by me, i didnt know the difference between an article and a page before this blew up, i intended to use them and bin them. I have zero interest in web presence of those articles. But i did just expect the original article to be deleted like everything else here, subject to the knife. I learnt that its different, and I have subsequently read most of the applicable policies and discussions. Vanity is not a reason for deletion for instance. I never wanted the article with a J in the middle, I have never used that elsewhere on the web until 3 days ago. I simply couldnt figure out how to create a dis-ambiguation page. The lack of Google presence was used as evidence of non-notabilty. How ironic as its my original real name, but never used in publicity. On the other hand, without the J, my name creams the top of the planets search engines, and has for 5 years or more. People were seeing what they wanted to see, and believing what they wanted to believe, looking in the wrong place, without much fuzzy logic. I really have been published all over the place by many notable institutions, but the slash and burn mental set was fuelled by my older, outmoded techniques... (residual stuff on old web sites).  I have since realised that I could correct the apparent lack of page response on google by giving google what it needed to catalogue me both ways. IT ONLY TOOK 3 DAYS!!!! look here: http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=Paul+J+Moss&btnG=Search&lr=lang_en result: #4 out of 3 Million results and #1,2 and 3 are my own sites now. None of you can ever take that away, it's a direct result of years of hard work, recognized by a secret and highly successful algorythm, that has made google the worlds most awesome search company. It wouldnt have happened if i didnt have the notabilty to build on in the first place. Google has at least 500 Million pages and to be #1 on 3, 6 and often 12 million is, (using my public name) IN ITSELF, A NOTABLE accomplishment. I challenge any one here, without notability, to achieve such a result, with such a popular name as Paul and Moss. Paul brings up 416 Million, Moss brings up 26 Million, and thats English only results. It simply doesnt matter what wiki thinks, (1 Million TOTAL)i watch my logs, the wiki traffic is from a few select visitors, while my traffic from world wide educational institutions, government, science, NASA, the Military, are a thousand time higher. It's simply true and provable that my achievements are reported and cross linked back to me by a range of ever growing organisations. I never ever paid anyone to build a website or promote my sites. I did it all myself. They are not very good, but they perform the function intended, to share. In the end none of that matters, what ACTUALLY MATTERS is that people enjoy the images, and are stimulated to think more, and perhaps give it a go themselves. It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to photograph a comet and have it reported on NASA SPACEWEATHER DOT COM. Another KIWI did it yesterday. I have done it twice before. I have no knowledge of anyone else from NZ ever having achieved that. We have population 4 million. That is because its a notable feat, and almost impossible, for a long list of boring reasons. The NASA articles still exist, and are available, but thats not the point anymore, the point for me is that wikipedians are often too convoluted in their thinking and application of their POV of the rules, to bother to discuss first and reach consensus as a result. Slash and burn is rife, and i see that that is a natural response to all the vandalism and mess cleaning needed. It's actually EXPECTED, and assumed when the indications create an APPEARANCE of non conformance to the rules, but the rules are mostly INSIDE peoples heads, thats the point of wiki, as i see it, to SHARE the concepts of what the rules could or should be. There are many up sides to this, and some less apparent than others, for instance the vandalism of KIWI articles is now under careful scrutiny and watch by a lot more editors. Another is that I have been drawn into bothering to find out more about this place ticks, yeah 'some kind of experiment is right' but only now, AFTER the fact, having been forced to consider whether i would object to the afd/vfd thingy, and deciding that it was better to have the page deleted in due process. But the people who will decide whether or not that happens are charged with due diligence, and its truly ironic that there can be other more positive outcomes, beyond my control. I believe that the voting should have some kind of diligence as well, but I simply dont know how that can be done. Some of the worlds best brains are on that issue right now.. Finally, for this round, the NEGATIVE cut and trash approach is very prevalent, but flies in the face of the published policies, which is simplistically stated as building by discussion and consensus. Building is a POSITIVE activity, with consultation between designer and end users along the way. My dad was a builder, and his buildings still stand, many hundreds of them and between 40 and 70 years old. That is notable in my opinion. Funny, you will be hard pressed to actually find my POV on my websites... its is a wierd and wonderful world, especially when you live upside down like us down under here, otherwise the bulk of civilisation does, we cant both be walking upright now can we? Most of what happens is a web of relativity, connected and in relation to everything else that happens. It's true of POV here. I dont expect anyone to care much, but i have lots more to say... moza 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment Copies of this page are at Paul C C Moss, Paul z Moss and Paul x Moss. These probably need to be merged or deleted once the vote is over. - SimonLyall 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * ok so as there has been no objection, why doesnt an admin delete them? thats how i read the rules. why redirect it? that ADDS to the clutter. I did tell you they were holding pages. More recently, I did see the opportunity for doing a bit of tail wagging myself, by nominating them for deletion. But i am going to request an admin to delete them as my next step. The process for nomination is supposed to be to discuss it with on the article talk page first, but there was no such discussion. The process for voting is also supposed to be calm objective discussion and due diligence, but thats hardly the case here. moza


 * Comment subjects can edit articles about themselves, apparently: read on, ref ::http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench/news/2828/wikipedia-founder-looks-out-number-1
 * this project appears to have been funded by methods not approved by lots of people, but then again what is truth and what is propaganda - its getting harder to tell.


 * Comment the core is melting guys...
 * ""Another person obsessively monitoring his own biography is Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, who has edited it frequently, removing references to a credited "co-founder" of the encyclopedia and obscuring the nature of a pornographic web site he once published.
 * Though some Wikipedia editors believe that it's always wrong to edit subjects in which you are involved, this idea is clearly not shared by Wales. The edit history of his biography reveals that he's made 18 changes with the account Jimbo Wales, most recently on Dec. 2.
 * On seven different occasions, Wales has altered sentences that gave Larry Sanger credit for cofounding Wikipedia. Sanger, a former employee of Wales whose job was eliminated in 2002, led the project as "chief organizer" from its January 2001 launch and gave the site its name. He described himself as Wikipedia's cofounder in a 2004 Kuro5hin article.
 * Wales does not share this view.
 * On Oct. 28, 2005, he changed the text "Wales and Sanger set up Wikipedia" to "Wales set up Wikipedia." He made the change again later that day and repeated it on Nov. 9 and Dec. 1 -- other editors kept putting language back in that credited Sanger.
 * On Dec. 2, Wales revised "Sanger initially came up with the idea to make the encylopedia wiki-based" to "Jeremy Rosenfeld initially came up with the idea to make the encylopedia wiki-based." He also replaced a line crediting Rosenfeld with the idea for the name, changing it to "Sanger coined the name 'wikipedia'." Wales used the editors' talk page of his biography to complain about efforts to credit Sanger with the site's founding:
 * I was there, and I know the history. I set up Wikipedia. I fixed the broad outlines of early policy, and Larry worked under my direct supervision at every stage of the process. The current article, even with my edits, contains considerable incorrect editorialization, it's just that I don't even know where to begin in correcting it.
 * Another sore spot for Wales has been Bomis Babes, a now-closed subscription service of his company's Bomis.Com search portal that offered nude pictures of women. The site, whose cache used to be viewable on Internet Archive, has been described as "softcore pornography," "pornography," or "erotica" by Wikipedia editors.
 * Wales changed "Bomis Babes softcore pornography section" to "Bomis Babes adult content section" on Sept. 4 and twice removed references to the nature of the site, replacing "Bomis Babes erotica section" with "Bomis Babes blog based on Slashdcode" (Oct. 20) and "Bomis Babes pornography section with a blog based on Slashcode" to "Bomis Babes blog based on Slashcode" (Oct. 28). (Apparently, it's what's on the inside of a web site that counts.)
 * When his Sept. 4 edit was removed, Wales reinstated it later that day and put this comment on the edit: "Please do not change it back without consulting with me personally."
 * Commercial depictions of naked women are not pornography, Wales declared on his biography's talk page: ""
 * mmm... so much for leadership.. at least its transparent..  moza 17:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment and just for some more enlightened comment than i have seen on this page to date:
 * """" yes it makes good reading..


 * Re the XTRA ip's, I think most of us can figure that out, IP's are only indicative, but slander is slander, and when its tied to an IP and a time stamp, its trackable by the ISP, thats all. Funny though, how MY edits to MY site, are used as 'evidence' of wrong-doing, but yours to a cache are allowable? why did you kill the photos? the PHOTOS are the subject, not the ancient (web time) residual content below the subject. Also you killed the cross links to each individual page that makes that site WORK, for the user, malicious editing of other peoples web pages and reproducing them on un-authourised sites is possible, but not very nice. Again, an army of free volunteers to clean up my pages would be welcome, but somehow I dont think anyone will step forward... much more fun to cut down a tall poppy and wag the tail of the tiger... oh yeah, check the date on that page, its OLD. However, it does illustrate the fact that sub-luminal photos of Auroral activity can be achieved at relatively high geomagnetic lattitude, but thats suddenly boring you to tears.. moza 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * dunno what search engines you are using, or why your results are so disparate with mine, and I would very much like to know, its more important to me than astronomy. I get between 6 and 12 Million pages back from google on Paul Moss and i take out several of the top 10. Scholar? what's that in this day and age. Books? havent they died? I jest of course. delivers at least a dozen verifiable pages, mostly at the top.  I challenge anyone here to claim a similiar world wide exposure, and with it, the exposure of astronomy to ALL. thats boring though, and wont happen, from my observations, the vanity label is going to quash any reasoned and in-depth conversation here. moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The truth is that astronomy is and has been for several centuries, the realm of the amateur, and we are proud of what we have delivered to the world. Stratafication of that is pointless and counter-productive to the growing interest and availability of resource in the subject; images are the best vehicle to transport the information to the masses. Every photo has a photographer; photographers names are simply a hook to hang the pics on, most photographers would rather you just look at the photos. Such a feeding frenzy is shameless and debasing all who participate, you could simply look at the amazing images and give it a go yourself. Now heres an idea, if you really care about astronomy, how about joining in the pure act of gifting some of your images to the planet? moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * try search for 'astronomy nz' and report back here the rankings found worldwide, if we get enough reports, that might give some basis for further discussion. moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that the fun is almost over here, where to next? lets go and find more pages to slice and dice? clearly, positivity and ADDING stuff to the web is more valuable than REMOVING, all other things being equal... it occurs to me that the only step left is to delete the article myself, ahead of time, thereby invoking someone to feel that they have to restore it.. to satisfy the rules; how can you discuss an article if it isnt there kind of logic. That would be curiously ironic. umm what is th time frame for all this, and can an admin just kindly put it to rest? so much more to learn.moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * and now for our next victim..

almost impossible to track now but here is th edeleted stuff
Line 1: 	Line 1: ===Paul_J_Moss=== 		===Paul_J_Moss=== - 	I have refactored some of the extended comments to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Paul J Moss to improve readability. This is not an assertion that those comments are somehow less valuable, simply that there are readability issues. Please add new comments and votes to the bottom of this page. Stifle 11:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC) - 	:: I also refactored the residual comment to there, in fairness to all the other comments.. I thought that the discussion was supposed to take place on the article discussion page first, and then move here for the afd/vfd part after that.. moza 06:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - 		 	*Reason why the page should be deleted Bongos 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Reason why the page should be deleted Bongos 11:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC) :Seems to be vanity? Paul J Moss is not notable as far as I can tell. Googling turned up only a few bizarre hits: :http://www.astronomy.net.nz/frame19.htm (Scroll down that particular page!) 		:Seems to be vanity? Paul J Moss is not notable as far as I can tell. Googling turned up only a few bizarre hits: :http://www.astronomy.net.nz/frame19.htm (Scroll down that particular page!) - 	::bizarre??? a misleading fabrication.. laughable if it wasnt so tragic moza 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 	+ 	*Keep - for what its worth.. one vote.. does anyone really care? moza 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 	:::try and lose the J in your search, its a red herring. moza 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	:::here to make it easy for you http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=paul%2Bmoss&btnG=Search - 	:::and / or Paul Moss Google search result web page moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	::: for what its worth.. one vote.. does anyone really care? try the root site: www.astronomy.net.nz and then you could look at electricity.net.nz and perhaps www.map.net.nz and also why not paulmoss.org they top out millions of pages in my searchs, but what does google know? look up http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=lang_en&q=paul%2Bmoss&btnG=Search (#1 12Million pages today, although most days 6Million) probably better to look at who Bongo is, and check the range of IP addresses used to vandalise astronomy sites, this deletion listing is a pure act of vengeance for his/her inability to cope with some disorder. the IP's used in all of the vandalism point back to an anonymous user on a dial-up service of XTRA, owned and run by Telecom NZ, and the statements made violate the terms and conditions of use, thats why they must remain anonymous, the statements are also law breaking in their country of origin, but the user is trackable by those IP's and dates and times, perhaps they havent thought this through far enough, maybe it was a setup for that exact purpose. use visual route http://www.visualroute.com/ and look up 210.54.197.144, 210.86.34.226, 210.55.80.91 - 	:here is a small sample of his handywork, using (rv vand) etc to throw us off the trail.. - 	::* 2006-02-22 22:31:35 (hist) (diff) Mount John University Observatory (added detail.) - 	::* 2006-02-22 22:27:41 (hist) (diff) Farm cove observatory (fixed factual errors) - 	::* 2006-02-22 22:26:52 (hist) (diff) Carter Observatory (fixed links.) - 	::* 2006-02-22 22:23:23 (hist) (diff) Carter Observatory (fixed text) - 	::* 2006-02-22 22:19:23 (hist) (diff) Carter Observatory (npov) - 	::* 2006-02-23 19:12:57 (hist) (diff) Carter Observatory (rev vand) - 	::* 2006-02-23 19:10:28 (hist) (diff) Farm cove observatory (rv vand) - 	::* 2006-02-23 19:09:20 (hist) (diff) Mount John University Observatory (rv vand) - 	:You can phone me 24/7 from anywhere in the world by dialing +64 21 440 443, I'm proud of my identity, and it simply isnt defined by wiki or google or msn. If you really want to ascetain notability, then email paul.moss@paulmoss.org check http://www.domainz.net.nz/Domainz.asp or do lookups on whois and you can verify the domain name ownerships. moza 14:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 	::: this old (5 years) page http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/abundanc/space.html is high ranking on google search for aurora australis typically #8, and is used by many universities around the world as an aurora photo reference site, indicated by their URL's appearing in the domain logs for the sites linked to/from this page. 202.0.40.7 14:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *Delete - owning a few domain names, sticking your name in a huge font on a couple of websites to fool google and taking a few pictures of the sky isn't really a big mark of notability, however worthwhile the last occupation is. It's a vanity article too - if it weren't for a humungous amount of edits by the article's subject, the article wouldn't exist. That said, I'm loathe to enourage or endorse the proposer of the AfD since he's got some ulterior motives regarding the article subject --Aim Here 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Delete - owning a few domain names, sticking your name in a huge font on a couple of websites to fool google and taking a few pictures of the sky isn't really a big mark of notability, however worthwhile the last occupation is. It's a vanity article too - if it weren't for a humungous amount of edits by the article's subject, the article wouldn't exist. That said, I'm loathe to enourage or endorse the proposer of the AfD since he's got some ulterior motives regarding the article subject --Aim Here 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 	::obviously domain name ownership is not notable, its a mark of identity, something you are having issues with, huge fonts dont fool google anymore, that was years old, if i had an army of free editors i would allow access to clean up those sites. Taking pics of Aurora Australis is a method of promoting enjoyment of astronomy, and I appear to have done that. It is dificult in the north Island of NZ, and requires tenacity and passion, with technical abilty. it would be good if the research here was accurate and reliable, and we could make objective decisions. Its anachronistic anyway, just satisfying some need that I am observing here, hoping to understand your behaviour more clearly. I find, see, and image very rare and often fleeting sky and space phenomena, not deep space, rather the earths atmosphere. "taking a few pics of the sky" I take around 20,000 annually and have 60,000+ catalogued, yeah thats 4 terrabytes, and about the same number waiting scanning from approx 35 years of photography.. truth, not guesswork and manipulative behaviour. moza 05:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC) *Delete per above: not notable; fails WP:BIO. Google rank in a few arcane sujects does not confer notability, especially when you put your name and list your websites (along with a number of keywords) everywhere you can. bcasterlinetalk 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Delete per above: not notable; fails WP:BIO. Google rank in a few arcane sujects does not confer notability, especially when you put your name and list your websites (along with a number of keywords) everywhere you can. bcasterlinetalk 17:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 	:: I fail to understand how my name and professional activity can be considered 'arcane'? SOPAC didn't think so, there is a distinct lack of information here, for instance the worldwide web of links back to me and my sites from notable institutions hasnt even been discussed. How could it if you simply cant find out? its really only one page in one million, or maybe its one in 20,000, does that mean anything at all in the scheme of things? I dont think so. The fact that many wiki users have been alerted to my pages generally is probably more important. Its a almost a dead issue, but of some interest to how reactive the wiki community is. moza 05:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC) *Delete - Um, what? Xtra is the largest ISP in New Zealand! I'm on dial up so my IP is dynamic. Are you going to post every Xtra IP address as proof of a conspiracy? Anyhoo, I didn't mean to cause offense, it's just that your entry seems to violate the terms and spirit of Wiki. If you've done something notable, tell the world about it, and I'll withdraw my delete vote. Oh and gotta love Google Cache... here's that page as it was _before_ you hastily edited out all the questionable content (minus pics for speed): http://www.geocities.com/eastriverqueen/frame19.htm 		*Delete - Um, what? Xtra is the largest ISP in New Zealand! I'm on dial up so my IP is dynamic. Are you going to post every Xtra IP address as proof of a conspiracy? Anyhoo, I didn't mean to cause offense, it's just that your entry seems to violate the terms and spirit of Wiki. If you've done something notable, tell the world about it, and I'll withdraw my delete vote. Oh and gotta love Google Cache... here's that page as it was _before_ you hastily edited out all the questionable content (minus pics for speed): http://www.geocities.com/eastriverqueen/frame19.htm - 	::: a web page stolen and hacked by an anonymous voter cant have much verfiability can it.. *Comment "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages" 		*Comment "Only public domain resources can be copied without permission—this does not include most web pages" - 	:: So why did you copy and paste my legally owned page, if you believe in the rules? That invalidates that POV and vote, and the claim to remove the picturees for speed is a clear deceptive ploy; those pics are a functional part of that page and the frame they were in, and they were published by the University of Canterbury, NZ, with my permission, and sent to their mailing list. In all cases on this project page, I have left everything intact, moving sections for balance though, as faith that the truth will eventually shine through. amatuerish subversive tactics are not likely to stand up.moza 09:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 	+ 	*Delete. Article does not establish notability as an astronomer. A Google search for "Paul Moss" astronomy comes up with 702 hits with few verifiable sources. A similar search on Google books came up empty. A search for "Paul Moss" came up with a number of names but none that was immediately associated with this guy. A Google Scholar credit for "Paul Moss" astronomy came up with two entries. In short, he doesn't seem notable enough as yet as an astronomer nor is there any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 		 - 	*Delete. Article does not establish notability as an astronomer. A Google search for "Paul Moss" astronomy comes up with 702 hits with few verifiable sources. - 	A similar search on Google books came up empty. A search for "Paul Moss" came up with a number of names but none that was immediately associated with this guy. A Google Scholar credit for "Paul Moss" astronomy came up with two entries. In short, he doesn't seem notable enough as yet as an astronomer nor is there any evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 		 - 	::My astro websites exist to promote cool stuff in the sky, whether its day or night is completely unimportant to me; most of my value is in finding, seeing, imageing rare stuff, that other people simply cant see for one reason or another. My purpose is to create interest and give tools to share what i see, and perhaps to do what i do. My name could be Joe Blogs for all it matters, who cares. I have been exceedingly fortunate to have advice and help from an incredible set of people, both here in NZ and all over the world. I have been un-believably lucky to be in the right place at the right time, or so it seems. The truth is actually that LUCK translates to opportunity and peparedness. I put myself out there, in all kinds of extreme and uncomfortable situations, and I am prepared with the devices to find and capture the effects when they happen. I monitor a large number of information emails and web sites, so that i have some advance notion as to whether its likely or not, and then i simply take a lot more chances than most, to be available IF it does happen. That state of alert and preparedness for extreme periods is looked at as madness by some, tenacity by others, passion by a smaller number, and notable by an even smaller number. The key point is that I have delivered many almost impossible to get images to the entire planet, via many channels, and achieved my objectives. That simple joy of sharing is a very precious and valuable 'commodity' in an increasingly materialistic and superficial society, and can not be removed from my life. The important web pages and images live on, untouched by vandals, and growing in visitors daily. Here is a quick sample from 7 days ago. You can look for yourself at astronomy in nz tracking page, independently in fact. web site stats - 		 - 	::the columns are: visitors - impressions - percentage for day - 		 - 	NEW Zealand 202 488 48.79% - 		 - 	Australia 91 145 21.98% - 		 - 	United States 78 152 18.84% - 		 - 	United Kingdom 9 11 2.17% - 	Uruguay 5 7 1.21% - 	Canada 4 5 0.97% - 	Japan 3 3 0.72% - 	Malaysia 3 3 0.72% - 	Romania 3 3 0.72% - 	Hungary 2 2 0.48% - 	India 2 2 0.48% - 	Norway 1 2 0.24% - 	Finlanda 1 1 0.24% - 	France 1 1 0.24% - 	Kuwait 1 1 0.24% - 	Namibia 1 1 0.24% - 	Netherlands 1 1 0.24% - 	Rusia 1 1 0.24% - 	South Africa 1 1 0.24% - 	Spain 1 1 0.24% - 	Taiwan 1 1 0.24% - 	Turkey 1 1 0.24% - 	United Arab Emirates 1 1 0.24% - 		 - 	::its clearly not commercial, there is nothing for sale by me on any astro site, but it does indicate international notability, as it repeats every day, and has for 5+ years. There is meat in the sandwich. The list of referrers is especially important, but hard to get with this unpaid tracker, for more than 20. it certainly contains Universities and government from the entire planet. My sites are referenced at NASA, for instance.. Just because its a NEW form of notability that you dont understand and dont believe in, doesn't change the onjective information available. 1% of a nation, the achievers, could be another method of specifying inclusion. Having the courage to face this community is in itself either stupid or notable. The google rankings for me as a name are only due to the rankings of the sites about what i do, and thats astronomy sharing, proven by my last universal change, my websites are so important to the world, google trawls at a much higher frequency. Wiki says somewhere known to more than 5000 people, thats occurring every few months to me. There are all kinds of people ranking systems, and it still puzzles me why there are so many vicious surgeons, as opposed to BUILDERS.. why not take an article and BUILD it into what its supposed to be? Article name changes are easy to do, it could be about websites that share astronomy and photographs for free, for instance.. There are a million other articles and quite a few are much ado about nothing, I know i have rescued a few from deletion simply by added sections, images and a bit of info, so the cutters take their knives elsewhere. in the scheme of things its the message not the message bearer that counts. moza 03:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC) - 		 - 		 	* Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) " 		* Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) " *Keep &mdash; please note that the nominator is a new user with a first contribution to delete this article (and the second to badly modify the Aurora summary page). --William Allen Simpson 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Keep &mdash; please note that the nominator is a new user with a first contribution to delete this article (and the second to badly modify the Aurora summary page). --William Allen Simpson 23:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *Delete: Obvious vanity; Nowhere near notable enough for inclusion; Self-created and maintained entry. Delete. 217.96.105.6 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Delete: Obvious vanity; Nowhere near notable enough for inclusion; Self-created and maintained entry. Delete. 217.96.105.6 23:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC) *Note: Duplicate Page of Paul x Moss has just been created by User:Mozasaur, this should be included in the deleteion. or perhaps deleted earlier. - SimonLyall 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Note: Duplicate Page of Paul x Moss has just been created by User:Mozasaur, this should be included in the deleteion. or perhaps deleted earlier. - SimonLyall 23:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 	:: agree, it was a convenient holding page while i set up a new user page for the article to live in. moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	**Wow! This self-promotion to the nth degree! 217.96.105.6 23:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 	:: YES.. and it has ADDED more to astronomy world wide than any other method i tried so far, so it has some merit, albeit difficult to see the forest for the trees, I understand that.moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) *Delete: Vanity, not noteable etc. Even if the nomination was in bad faith the article still doesn't appear to meet criteria. The guy who is vandalizing the astronomy stuff should see the quote on my user page btw. - SimonLyall 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Delete: Vanity, not noteable etc. Even if the nomination was in bad faith the article still doesn't appear to meet criteria. The guy who is vandalizing the astronomy stuff should see the quote on my user page btw. - SimonLyall 23:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC) - 	::agreemoza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 	+ 	*Delete, as per Aim Here. -- Avenue 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)*Delete &mdash; Wouldn't even satisfy the average professor test. I think it's great what he's doing, but it's just not all that notable. Sorry. :) &mdash; RJH 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	*Delete, as per Aim Here. -- Avenue 00:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 	 - 	*'who cares look, the point is not anything to do with VFD/AFD, from where i stand, its OBVIOUS that it will go. Please dont waste any time discussing the apparent point, just kill the pages... lol. The point is to look at the human behaviour behind all this. yeah google cache is very cool, i use it all the time. The wiki page is a RED-HERRING, any of you know what that is? how about a RED FLAG WAVING... everything that you guys contribute to any of these pages is logged daily and increases the effect in another world out there... and its not called wiki. The 'J'in the middle name of the article is the reason why the searchs dont turn much up. It has NEVER been used elsewhere on the web. try the name without the J and you will see what i mean, anyway life continues with or without the page/pages and not much of any importance changes. The simple fact is that most of the people out there need a name to hang stuff on, and thats a VEHICLE, who cares whos name it is, only a sad few. I am intrigued though, to see the knee jerks and shallow research, used as apparent 'facts'. That speaks volumes for how this wiki thing works, and is likely to be its downfall, although I hope a way is found to overcome that. enjoy your frenzy guys.. lightening up an otherwise (very) dull day Paul Moss 01:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	* Delete &mdash; Wouldn't even satisfy the average professor test. I think it's great what he's doing, but it's just not all that notable. Sorry. :) &mdash; RJH 02:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 	 - 	::umm whats a 'professor test'? lol.. is there a 'professor' in web presence creation yet? play it out guys.. i'm sure theres nother more interesting in your lives to do.. why not just kill the article, oh that would end the fun prematurely.. and break the rules.. therefore the rules must be to have as much fun as possible! huh?? moza 02:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 	 - 	::was Herschel a professor when he discovered a planet? "The last amateur astronomer to discover a planet was Sir William Herschel when he found Uranus in 1781. He then became very famous. The FCO telescope is therefore the smallest telescope to contribute to the discovery of a planet."moza 06:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 	 - 		 	*Delete. Vanity. 68.87.71.183 06:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 		*Delete. Vanity. 68.87.71.183 06:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	::technically it may be vanity, but thats a gross simplification to reality, if it had of been written by others then your statement wouldnt hold up.moza 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC) 	+ 	*Delete: These articles are nothing but vanity, no matter how you look at it. 210.55.80.151 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - 		+ 	*Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Now back to adding stuff to Wikipedia... Ziggurat 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)*Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also violates WP:ASR. Stifle 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC) - 	::Delete: These articles are nothing but vanity, no matter how you look at it. 210.55.80.151 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - 		 - 	::: use of the plural 'articles' is misleading, one is gone, another is about to, the third would have if someone (possibly you) hadnt made a simple edit. Any label can not, in itself, change the message, and there are very cool pics and help out there to help newcomers experience it all for themselves.. the images are the message, not the photographer. So any statement made by anonymous, faceless, unidentified contributor, is meaningless under the very rules that you claim to operate; it can not be verified, it is a 'sock puppet POV' effectively. It has a likely intent, to add insult to injury. Why would anyone put a plastic sticker on a rotten kiwifruit lying on the ground to say it was wasnt worthy of being called a kiwifruit? its clearly rotten! the sticker isnt biodegradeable and is therefore in bad taste. If you want your vote to count, then you are able to sign in, create a user page, establish identity, but I know you wont do that, you have too much to lose. (we pretty much know who you are, from your real world history) What the maximum you can do to me, help remove an article? Faceless, un-identifiable voting, must belong to the dark ages, and cant possibly have any substantially real relevance to me and my life. But it does serve to indicate the flaws here, and create some thinking about that may be addressed. The debate about the article was a dead duck before it even started, so why bother to continue. Most of the tiny quantity of people that read them can see that. Simon is the one of the few deserving respect here, at least he is doing what he believes is right. moza 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC) - 	*Delete Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Now back to adding stuff to Wikipedia... Ziggurat 06:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	:: agree to the delete vote, but the truth is that ALL and EVERY page promotes itself on the web.. and therefore i believe that your statement is ambiguous. no need to explain, we all know that wiki isnt supposed to be used as a promotional tool, but i have been monitoring many sites daily and it does actually promote stuff. It IS called a WEB for good reason. even this page is promoting everything on this page..moza 07:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - 	*Delete as Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Also violates WP:ASR. Stifle 11:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC) - 	::Oh well everything is adjustable, and it does 'appear' to be a soapbox at times.. but then some people do take themselves quite seriously, dont they.. moza 06:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC) - 		 - 	!!! KEEP !!! Paul has some amazing photo's that have been recognised internationally, and the sharing of pictures between sites is mutual. Paul also has some very valid and interesting views, and i think deletion would be a big mistake and a big loss of content. Get a clue Bongos - 		 - 	*keep paul moss is clearly someone who has done notible acheivements in the field of astronomy moza 09:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)