User talk:Keilana/Archive1

His user name is BozMo and the article is "orphan" (subhead Significant charities that help orphans). Under BozMo's user information he says that he works for SOS Children's Villages, one of the two organizations listed. If this is not an obvious example of conflict of interests I'm not sure what is! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.251.95.2 (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo, I responded to your comment on your talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBethany (talk • contribs) 19:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's me again (warm blankets lady) This person (BozMo)keeps deleting Warm Blankets Orphan Care from the significant charities that help orphans under the orphan article. He works for SOS Children's Villages UK! I think it's completely bogus that he's deleting Warm Blankets from the list. There is no good reason for deleting warm blankets from the list other than he doesn't want "competition." It is not SPAM. I am a person who believes in that organization and who knows for a fact that they are SIGNIFICANT in helping orphans.

Is there any way to keep this person from deleting warm blankets? It seems extremely unfair. Help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MissBethany (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. In general you should assume good faith and ask me directly, rather than assuming I am "completely bogus". If Warm Blankets has notability then I am happy to try to help you write an article so it can get listed. I have a long track record of helping other charities to get good articles up about themselves. However no article means you cannot add a URL. SOS Children's Villages is a $800m turnover 125 country operation by the way, with a strict rules to help other NGOs whenever possible... I think we can happily grow alongside competition without worrying about it. --BozMo talk 22:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am assuming your good faith but as far as I can see I only reverted you once? --BozMo talk 22:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I see what you mean about notability. I just added the separate article because I added the organization under wikipedia's orphans article (under organizations that help orphans). Someone removed the entry for some reason. Maybe it sounded too advertise-ish. Anyway I put the mention of the org back onto the orphans page without any extra info and hopefully that will stay put.

That's alright, thanks for contributing! I hope you continue to contribute. :) Regards, Keilana 01:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...is not for testing. If you do want to test, you may want to go to that new admin's school. I have no idea where it is, though. -Goodshoped 03:24, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, thanks. Regards, Keilana 03:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For actions as both defender and restorer to many articles, and vanquisher of vandals, you are awarded this barnstar. Aloha! LonelyBeacon 05:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text

Did you need something? — Rlevse • Talk • 16:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks for asking though! Regards, Keilana 16:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need something now? Dreadstar † 09:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be welcomed, but since I welcomed you before, I just decided to do it again :)

Welcome!

Hello, Keilana, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! - FISDOF9 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need more questions! :P Jonathan (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Cremepuff222* has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

:) *Cremepuff222* 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Keilana! Thank you for the correction of Shusha pogrom (1920)! You see we have some problems there as a user discussed the NPOV, so we will be glad if you continue grammar/content corrections to make the article better. Off course, in the case if you're interested and have time! Best wishes, Andranikpasha (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I'd be pleased to do a copyedit. Thanks! Regards, Keilana 19:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keilana, can I interest you in the latest cool java tools for admins in your monobook .js and .css files? :) ~Eliz81^(C) 03:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks! Merci, chérie! Keilana 03:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet. Done. I hope you enjoy them :) ~Eliz81^(C) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keilana, I got called on this too... merge and delete is actually not an option based on the license Wikipedia uses, it has to be merge and redirect. Just thought you should know! :) hugs, ~Eliz81^(C) 18:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, oops! I'll redirect it now. Thanks for the heads-up. (AFD is not my strong point) Regards, Keilana 19:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry I don't think I was entirely clear. I had a much better explanation on my talk page than what I gave you! Basically if we're keeping the content and merging it elsewhere, the original article can't be deleted in order to preserve its history. So the preserved article is replaced with a redirect to the article where it's merged, but the history remains. Here's the much better explanation. :) ~Eliz81^(C) 22:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Has it been undeleted and redirected? Thanks. Regards, Keilana 22:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, my computer is not working too well at the moment so I reverted the wrong thing--Topspinslams (talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC) And I accidentally put that on your userpage. I'm going to switch PC's now.--Topspinslams (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied to talk page) That's alright, I'll remove the warnings. We all make mistakes, don't worry about it. :) Enjoy Wikipedia! Regards, Keilana 23:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthøny has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Not seen you around much, recently (although I probably knew you in your last name), so I thought I'd drop by and give you a little smile ;) hope you have a good day. Anthøny 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Regards, Keilana 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...whether you're open for adoption? Because if you are, I would be interested. —BoL @ 23:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keilana! Sorry you had to have a name change! JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dear, I hope all's well with you. Regards, Keilana 23:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They're good. I like them. :) Acalamari 00:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) Regards, Keilana 00:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Open your card →→→

Happy Holidays from BoL @!
If you live in San Francisco, this is located at 21st west of Church.

Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop

—BoL @ 00:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can you please add the Semi Protection template to The Hobbit article? Thanks. dposse (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks, I forgot. Keilana 02:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Flo Rida, I was wondering whether you were actively calling for the article to be deleted or just asking for references to be added to the article. The subject clearly qualifies as notable under WP:MUSIC since he currently has a top 10 single on the Billboard Hot 100. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused about this one too, Keilana. You sure this wasn't a mistake? GlassCobra 04:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a mistake; I've closed it as a speedy keep. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Regards, Keilana 13:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Keilana. Would you feel like doing me a favor and comparing the above article with the article that was deleted after this AfD, and telling me if there are any significant differences? I'd ask the deleting admin, he's not online. Thanks. I (talk) 04:28, December 19, 2007

This is really trivial material. It's also the recreation of a deleted article. It'll probably get afd'd again. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could actually be speedied as recreation of XFD's material. If it's effectively the same content, it should be deleted; I'll get on it. Thanks for the notification. Regards, Keilana 13:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you about the deletion of the article for Integrity Asset Management. The note I received from the warning bot stated:

"Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Integrity Asset Management, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Integrity Asset Management is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article."

First, I disagree that the article was blatant advertising. Nothing in the article text read as advertising, as the article simply made brief mention of the history of the company and what products/services it offers. Also, I have no connection whatsoever to the company or anyone who works there, so why would I attempt to advertise the company or its products or services?

Second, I cannot see any substantial difference between the article I created and these three articles for companies that generally are in the same area (asset management), which I found with only 60 seconds' worth of searching.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinkEquity_Partners%2C_LLC
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Management_Group
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acadian_Asset_Management

Could you please explain to me why those three articles are considered acceptable content (each has existed for more than a year, so I assume each has had at least one administrator assess its acceptability) while the article I created is not considered acceptable? Admittedly, the article I created was short (hence my marking it as a stub), but I did cite a source independent of the subject of the article (even though the reprint of the article was hosted at the company's website). Further, that source was published very recently (four months ago), and the source made mention of the company as an up-and-comer in an area (asset management) where many companies have existing Wikipedia entries. Not one of the three examples I listed above even cites a source that is separate from the subject of the articles (if there are citations at all in those articles, they are only to parts of the websites of the articles' subjects). In addition, I see nothing in any of those three articles that is any more indicative of significance or importance than what I wrote in my article.

I believe that the article I created satisfies the guidelines to remain in Wikipedia, and I am confident that the article was sufficiently substantial and neutral that it was not a candidate for speedy deletion under criterion A7 (see, e.g., significant notice in magazine as an up-and-coming asset manager).

Frankthetank (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the contents of the deleted article and I agree with Keilana and support the deletion per CSD A7 as well as CSD G11, Blatant advertising. Dreadstar † 22:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, in no way did the article "exclusively promote" the entity it described, as stated in the criteria for CSD G11. Also, in response to Keilana's response to me, the only reason that the citations in the article referred to the company's website was that the company's website was the only place where I found a reprint of the source article (as opposed to just the article's text) to be available. Did you review the article referenced? The article plainly was from a "reliable, external source." Also, your response did not even address my questions as to why _this_ article, which had such an external source, was deleted, while many others in the same general area exist without _any_ references that do not link to the company website are allowed to continue to exist.

Frankthetank (talk) 03:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry about that, I saw the "3" as a "5" and thought that the edit was made after the final warning. I will be more careful in the future. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience. --SimpleParadox 23:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't worry about it at all! I've made the same mistake several times. Happy editing, and just ask if you ever need any admin-y things done. :) Regards, Keilana 23:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Keilana. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 23:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keilana 23:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it says that if you want to keep an admin from deleting the article, add {{hangon}} to the bottom of the tag. Someone's probably reverted your removal by now, it's a serious offense to remove CSD tags. If the CSD tag does say to remove it, then it's most likely a fake.Calvin 1998 (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk page. Keilana 23:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for Calvin, that any editor can remove a CSD tag if they disagree, it is not a "serious offense" to remove them. The only person who should not remove a CSD tag, is the creator of the article. However, if another editor disagrees that the article is Speedy-delete worthy, they are free to remove the tag, explaining it on the talk page, and discussing it there. See WP:CSD, which specifically says in the intro: "Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page, and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page." Hope that helps explain things! Ariel♥Gold 23:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ariel, I'm going to put a hangon tag so no one deletes it; I don't want to mess with 3RR, personally. Regards, Keilana 23:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to request that the article for Vpmi be restored. You identified it as spam. The article is about a notable project management tool. The language used in writing the article was pulled primarily from 3rd party articles in relevant technology publications about the Vpmi solution. In addition, the software is referenced and talked about at length in two books that are currently used by classrooms across the country for educating graduate students on project and portfolio management. By all accounts this article is relevant and should be restored. It has been on Wikipedia for months and was not challenged by anyone monitoring the its presence on the List of Project Management Software, which is a page that gets considerable attention. Please reply as soon as possible. In the future, a discussion with the author would be appreciated before making this decision. --Tilleyg (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, regarding your removal of the speedy tag on that page, while I don't really care either way, it seems quite inappropriate to say that they are "generally notable by precedent" when Wikipedia:Notability (schools) itself says there is no agreement on the matter. For this article alone, there is no assertion of notability and no sources provided aside from its own website, which of course fails two of the basic tenants here. Just me being curious about the decision. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's fine; I don't even care if you want to let it stay, I just tend to have a hate-hate relationship with these kinds of stubs (though my focus is on media rather than articles, to be honest). And thank you for the reply! -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 01:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm fairly new to the whole project, so I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting a user for vandalism. I've been working with the Kid Nation articles and ran across this user: User:65.96.4.111. At first I thought information might have been removed from the Kid Nation episode article by accident, but after looking at the talk page for this user/IP it seems that it has been the source of quite a bit of vandalism. What is the procedure for reporting this, and who would I alert? Thanks in advance. DoubleVibro (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoubleVibro! I actually have an entire guidebook for new editors who wish to deal with vandalism, if you'd like to read it, you can find it here, it explains all about what is, and isn't vandalism, what types of warnings there are, what order to use them, how and when to report, and how to deal with many other issues that arise. I hope you find it helpful! Ariel♥Gold 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending that to him, Ariel, did you post on his talk page? Keilana 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I read through the sections indicated. Good info for the future. DoubleVibro (talk) 06:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so interested in Shops, check here. Macy's123 01:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which reminds me, they've nominated both shops for deletion. One down, one more to go, that is, if it gets deleted. Cheers, —BoL @ 06:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,Keilana. i didn't know that.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it when i asked IslaamMaged126 if he would please leave a comment on the mfd. If it is sorry i was unaware.  Sunderland06  15:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keilana, I am writing to request that the article for Vpmi be restored. You identified it as spam. The article is about a notable project management tool. The language used in writing the article was taken primarily from 3rd party articles in relevant technology publications about the Vpmi solution (see reference section of article). In addition, the software is referenced and talked about at length in two books that are currently used by classrooms across the country for educating graduate students on project and portfolio management (also included as links in the reference section of the article). By all accounts this article is relevant and should be restored. It has been on Wikipedia for months and was not challenged by anyone monitoring its presence on the List of Project Management Software, which is a page that gets considerable attention. Please reply as soon as possible. I am surprised that subsequent posts to your talk page have been answered while my request was not addressed. I look forward to your reply. --Tilleyg (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I'm butting in, Keilana. Tilleyg, I reviewed the contents of the deleted article and I fully support its deletion. The article was blatant advertising of a non-notable subject. Dreadstar † 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in also, I reviewed the contents of the deleted article also, support its deletion and agree with the reasoning given above.--Hu12 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to everyone who has commented on this particular subject, I would ask for your suggestions as to how the article could be rewritten to be included in Wikipedia. If you could highlight those areas that stand out as blatant advertising, it would be appreciated. This article was built using the Microsoft Project template as an example. I believe the software is notable as defined in the Wikipedia:Notability section where it says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Should you disagree, I think it would be reasonable to ask why the sources listed do not qualify for notability. Furthermore, I think it would be prudent to do the same critical review of all software solutions listed on the page List of project management software. I read through many of these and would argue that based on your justification, none of these should be included. The Vpmi article made reference to multiple third party reviews of the application as well as books that have published information on Vpmi as a notable project management solution. I appreciate your feedback. --Tilleyg (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's next? I've "turned in" my homework! Jonathan 01:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great success! Thank you for supporting my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 53-3-2. Special thanks goes to Shalom for both the suggestion and the nomination. I'm honored by the trust that the community has shown in me, and will do my very best as an administrator. Thanks again! faithless (speak) 08:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurer! The Council has identified a number of strange occurrences (such as "vandals" and "articles for deletion") in the surrounding wilderness. The Council would check it out, but they have important Councily-type things. But never fear: brave adventurers known as "sysops" roam the lands!

Thank you for your support in my quest to become a sysop. Although I am now wielding the keys to my very own Bitchin' Meatcar, I promise to uphold the laws of the land, martini in hand, in a way that would make Saint Sneaky Pete proud. I will do my best to be a Jack of Several Trades (although I may be a Master of Nuns). I promise to Heart Canadia. And I will make it my goal to Make War, Not ... er, Wait, Never Mind.

I am glad to serve my guild, the League of Wikipedians. If I can be of any assistance, or you have any questions, suggestions, or criticisms in the future, please let me know. And if you are at a loss for what any of the above actually means, see this website.

Thanks again.

An Encyclopedia is We! - Revolving Bugbear 22:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you delete my page? I spent ages on it, and had not yet completed it. It was completely within the terms on wikipedia to put that artist up there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thestationx1 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MUSIC. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thestationx1 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)I was in the process of putting more references up when you so hastily wiped it all out, why did you do that? can't you check the links and see that it was WITHIN THE GUIDELINES!!!!!!!!Thestationx1 (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, please be more civil. It was a misunderstanding. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thestationx1 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)No, i'm just a dj who likes him, i wanted to learn how to write articles on here. I just think it's unfair how I didn't get a proper chance to finish off my first page.Thestationx1 (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't finish off the article, and it did not appear to be notable. Please assume good faith. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thestationx1 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)no i don't know them other than i added them on myspace, i have read the guidelines, it would have fitted in, don't worry about it, i'm going to try and find something else to write about then, i'm trying to work out how to do the code and stuff, it's just now i don't really feel like it as it will probably get wiped before i finish.Thestationx1 (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thestationx1 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)thanks, but it has already been tagged for deletion again!!! i'm giving up!!!Thestationx1 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thestationx1 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)yeah i see that now, my pc is obviously playing up now, it said it was but now it doesn't, well, i'm just going to leave it now, i've got a headache, thanks for all your help.Thestationx1 (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thestationx1 (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)my page is up for speedy deletion again, i don't understand why, can you have a look at it please? thanks a lotThestationx1 (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work there...but we generally don't use refs in the lead (at least, I don't)...anyways, thanks :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to FA it (it being the first PF album I heard/bought/loved) but there isn't enough on it. Internationalist (album) is featured, btw. - compare :O I'm gonna get Odyssey Number Five to FA next month probably - there's a stack of content at http://www.ozmusic-central.com.au/powderfinger/articles.htm that I haven't even looked at yet, and it's already GA. Speaking of which; Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Powderfinger albums :D :D :D Oh, Riana's throwing an RfA up on Sunday, probably ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can help the FT by supporting it ;) :P Riana's already a sysop, it's kinda the other way around. If you wanna try and get Vultures to FA and I'm happy for you to, but I don't hold bucketloads of hope for it...and yeah, I'm going to get work on O#5 now. Btw. not sure the recall link in your sig is necessary - you kick ass as an admin! Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, accountability kicks butt. At the moment, I'm gonna be going through the articles list I just linked to and adding to the background sections - if you wanna find some more professional reviews that'd be useful (we have 2 now, and 2 non-professional)...otherwise just jump in and fix anything you can find :) My prose is horrible; chances are there's a mass of copyediting you can do :P Cheers, — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, um, when's Adam Clayton getting a jab towards FAC? — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 03:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I understand that the page Dunk Ryders Records was recently called upon for 'speedy deletion' and you authorised this. The reason for deletion was {{db-inc}}, which is incorrect. I spent hours gathering sources, reading sources, then writing the article, and may I say for the third time, and there was absolutely no need whatsoever for the article to be deleted. Yes I'll admit, this was one of my first posts on WP, but I did read and follow all of the rules which where put accross when creating the page, so I see no reason for it to be deleted.

Please could you consider reviewing the action, because as I've stated there's nothing wrong with the article. And ultimately, if you say you can't re-create the article (for whatever reason), could you at least be so kind as to supply the source of the page so I can work on the content. Thanks, I hope to hear from you soon.

I saw that Natural Chef Foods was deleted for Blatant Advertising. I am new to posting articles here, but I modeled this page after other pages describing companies. For example, Turtle Island Foods. It was not my intent to advertise, but simply exist here. I really like using Wikipedia and I think it is a great thing. Do you have any specific suggestions as to how I can do a better job and not get deleted? Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackParker288 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I noticed that you removed the CSD tag from a handful of pages I added it to [1] [2]. I was interested in a further explanation of your rationale. It was my impression that CSD criteria "overrode" an ongoing AFD (hence several AFDs being closed within a day with the result "speedy"). Each of the above articles seems to clearly fall under criteria A7 - no assertation of notability made. One article I tagged ended up being speedied under this criteria - not sure if you removed that tag or not in the interim, of course. I'm sure there's a reason for this beyond mere beaucratic inanities, and was curious as to what it was. Are only admins allowed to tag speedy? --Badger Drink (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keilana/Archive1, Thanks for your cooperation by controlling vandalism on my page. I really appreciate that. But what you actually did was revert to another Vandalized version created by User:CHUzEE (Notice the name made to mock me, as it means a chicken in Urdu). I am pretty sure that this account is created to vandalize my user page as it is semi-protected now making it impossible for unregistered IPs to vandalize. I am pretty sure that this user is also registered under the name User:Smsarmad as i know this guy and he calls me with that word which is abusive in our native language. I would be grateful if you can direct me on how to tackle this situation as to protect myself against those accounts. Thanks for your help. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP addresses. Dreadstar † 21:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections to you as mediator, but I don't know about the mediation; it's clearly set up to force me to change my views. --NE2 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless they're willing to look at the larger picture, I'm not going to accept. --NE2 22:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that they're still changing to their preferred version, I decline unless you can convince them to discuss the larger issue. --NE2 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been protected with that section blank by one of them, which is something I can agree with. I'm just not convinced that they're willing to look at the larger picture. --NE2 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I try hard to, but with statements like "That is not an issue. Quit trying to distract the issue.", there's really only one thing to assume. If you can somehow shape it so we're actually discussing the larger issue, I'll participate. --NE2 01:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My conduct is being overblown by them; I ask on the WikiProject Council talk page about what the tags are intended for, and they accuse me of forum shopping. --NE2 01:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what to do. I've asked Kirill, who helped me on the council talk page, to look at it, but he appears to be away. --NE2 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a link to User:NE2/USRD scope immediately after it was created. --NE2 01:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll participate if you make it clear that the entire dispute over inclusion of unnumbered highways and other articles in the project scope is being discussed. --NE2 01:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then I decline. Sorry. I do wonder why it was called "2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads" if it's not actually about that. --NE2 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. However, I can't be as active as some of the rest, but I'll try. I'm juggling enough as it is.^Mitch32^contribs 21:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives you a right to decide which page is "blatant advertising" or not, just on your own??? Administrator is the one, who have to care about the others and not the one who ruins others work, without knowing anything about it. Did you acknowledge that the page was completely missing and created as an exact copy of approved and same kind of pages made for other companies? No. Do you know that "Earth Balance" is the one and only existing butter like margarine in the entire USA and therefore the same necessary as other basic food-articles for vegetarians and vegans in the Wikipedia? No. Do you care one little bit bout that I come from Europe and do not have the slightest in common with the brand or the company I was meant to be "advertising" for? No.

Maybe you should take a peek at my personal blog and all the Creative Commons buttons and the "Ad-free blog" images. I am the last person in the world to advertise for a company in an Open Source page like Wikipedia. Not even in a proprietary page. Not even for money.

Fine, really exactly what Wikipedia needs, more people who delete things they never heard about.

According to the rules it is not allowed to delete entire pages without very good reasons. Obviously you prefer also to do this to people, who you consider too new to be able to revert this. Sadly, I am only "new" to the English Wikipedia.

"Thank you" for ruining other people's work. This is ridiculous. In the German Wikipedia people like you are called "Loesch-Troll" = deleting maniac. If you expect kindness of others so you should first start acting kind.

Why the heck am I sitting here, using an Open Source operating system, an Open Source browser to edit an Open Source page and then get "speedy deleted" for "blatant advertising"? You do not deserve to be an administrator here. You are not "kind" and you do not understand anything of the spirit of Open Source. You are a disgrace to all those who work really hard for others. — Comment added by Reiskeks (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 December 2007 (GMT)

It looked like blatant advertising to me. If you can provide sources and content per WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, we can look at restoring the article. This is not to say that you were trying to blatantly advertise the product, it is a comment on a page that appeared to "exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" Dreadstar † 22:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just giving you the heads up that I commented on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads. I am fine with you as mediator. --Son (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw that you A7ed that. I was in the middle of removing the tag as not meeting A7. . It does not appear to me to meet A7 since it is not about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content". I'm not going to contest this deletion since it likely should not have its own article anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it; he's editing completely different articles than the PeeWee socks usually edit. And he normally targets user pages, not talk pages. —BoL 03:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for helping me out there. Footballfan190 (talk) 04:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to change it to keep it, but no one will give me a straight answer on what to add. I know a lot bout him. What do I need to keep it from being deleted? AniChai (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solid references and lots of notability. —BoL 05:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to the Organizations He belongs/belonged to, and if it is a biographical article than the person IS the subject, no? AniChai (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not count as being notable. Please read WP:N. Perhaps they'll help you more. —BoL out @ 05:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it read better, and added some information, although I doubt that It will not be deleted. AniChai (talk) 05:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then go out and voice your vote! —BoL 05:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 things..One, thank you for your help. I appreciate It. 2, how do I add my vote to the deletion page? and three, will I be notified If/when it is deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AniChai (talk • contribs) 05:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One, you're welcome. 2, WP:AFD and scroll to your article. three, no. you can only watchlist the AFD and the page and wait. —BoL 06:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what is required to restore the requestfill.com article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requestfill&action=edit. The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of what is unique about the requestfill.com search engine compared to the other business search engines referenced at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines

Companies like business.com and Thomasnet all have wikipedia pages that describe their unique search capability. Please explain why Requestfill.com can not have a similar article that talks about their unique search capability or what is missing from the article that would allow you to restore it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltadog63 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keilana, I saw your posting on my article indicating that "in order for an article to be published on wikipedia it must be referenced by a 3rd party publication" Keilana, so are you saying if some 3rd party publication published something about Requestfill Inc. and that article was referenced in the "reference" section of my wikipedidia article you would then allow the requestfill.com article to be posted? From what I can tell that is all Nexis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LexisNexis and Business.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business.com have different with their article.

Please advise what the other companies listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_search_engines have done that requestfill needs to do in order to be referenced on wikipedia .. thanks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltadog63 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like from the NY times or something. —BoL 01:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, you have created a deletion discussion for Michael Babula while another such discussion was already under way at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Babula. I have closed the second one. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keilana

you deleted the page on Riccardo Cassin because you think he is an unkmown person. Actually, the name Riccardo Cassin was included in the Wikipedia List of Climbers (you can check it). What I simply did was just fill in the entry Wikipedia gave. Conclusion Wikipedia agrees that RFiccardo Cassin is an important climber. Alterantively, I sugegst you to delete the Riccardo Cassin entry from the List of Climbers.

Gianga04 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted this page for blatant advertising. Have you viewed my talk page. I would argue that it is not advertisin just the same as Sky TV is on wikipedia. Please explain how this article can conform. Scathain (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Keilana. I would suggest you check talk pages first before deletion. However I will look up these articles. It is important that deletion rules do not become too strict as this will inhibit the expansion of wikipedia. However a balance is required for wikipedia to be considered credible. I am aware at the moment that wikipedia is not considered credible enough for referencing in undergraduate courses. I would therefor suggest that a simplified menu of does and does and do nots are provided on the navigation page.

I am just taking a break from finishing my masters dissertation paper and haven't time to improve this article to conform. I hope to at a later date. Notability is a subjective thing. Notability in one country may not be so in another country. I have other contributions which are fine. This is a learning experience so no problem :-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scathain (talk • contribs) 00:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Keilina. I think the article deleted could be challenging as not much data beyond the website exists on it. I will have to do a search at a later date to see if there are any verifiable sources on it. There may well be. I take it that it relates more to verifiability rather than content itself. I take on board, coming from the msc dissertation where I have learned these things that 1 source is not viable enough. That may mean for the moment that an article about this provincial digital television provider may not be possible for encyplopedia reasons. Nevertheless patience needs to be a good friend to enthusiasm and reasonableness. The will not contest deletion but rather will try and improve the article at a later date. Wishing you a happy new year and thank you for the positive experience :-D RegardsScathain (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to get into an wheel war over it, but why did you delete Lets be nice? The A7 tag clearly doesn't apply - as reiterated at AN yesterday, A7 specifically doesn't apply to songs/albums, and the speedy tag reeks of bad faith, or at the very least highly dubious judgement - a user (who to judge from their talk page is shaping up to become a problem user - note the version before they removed all the warnings) added a {{prod}} to the band's article, re-added it after it was removed (the "Scream" soundtrack, I'd say, is pretty much instant notability), and then tagged the album for speedy deletion on the grounds that the band had been prodded, and continually re-added the tag each time the speedy request was declined & the article un-tagged. Do you have any objection to my restoring this one and submitting it to AfD to get some kind of consensus? — iridescent 01:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have set up a procedural AfD. Under the circumstances, it seems more appropriate than taking it straight to DRV. — iridescent 01:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Keilana ... When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diane Salema, the redirect should have been to MTV Live (Canada), not MTV (Canada) ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was in the midst of pointing that out, as well. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done —BoL 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just dropped by to note that I see you've marked several old AfDs for relisting, but apparently overlooked removing them from the original date and adding them to the new date. I have completed the relisting of the ones I observed, specifically Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quinton Hoover, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radwimps, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtenay Semel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birdwatchers' Field Club of Bangalore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco Arabic, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spunga and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tha Carter III: The Leak. I believe that's all of them. I just wanted to remind you of this step for future reference. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That's why they call it a "mop", right? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pssst. You have to delete it from the old page when you transclude it to the new one. It should only show up as linking to one AfD page. ;) [3]. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you userfy the page to my space? The article contained original edits not in any other article which were lost when you deleted the article. Also, you did not indicate that you'd read the very long and involved discussion on this topic, including the point that WP:SIZE recommended the Ron Paul presidential article have subarticles, of which this was one. Can you please explain your decision more in depth, especially since it appears the consensus was to merge, not delete? Buspar (talk) 01:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for inserting those few paragraphs, but that was only a small part of the original text. Can you restore the whole thing to my user page so I can re-integrate the blimp and other portions that were sourced? Also, which keep arguments were invalid? The need for subarticles when a main article is too large is a pretty clear guideline. Buspar (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to question as to how you came to the determination that the AfD discussion resulted in a consensus decision to redirect to Rent (musical). It wasn't even mentioned as an option by any participant in the discussion. —  MusicMaker5376 04:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick attention! I've removed the AfD notice from the page, but I don't know how how to add the notice to the talk page. —  MusicMaker5376 20:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, re-list the AfD. Needs more discussion. Most arguments against not relevant after I added the references. You've probably missed that one. Also check who created the AfD, it seems to me like an obvious one-purpose account sockpuppet. greg park avenue (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't go for deletion review since the subject is not that important, kind of Polish Bob Geldorf but on local level without going international - big events with many stars, small results as at Live Aid event, at least for African children. All I asked was to prolong the discussion which you cut short. And no consensus to keep doesn't mean delete. Please, reconsider. greg park avenue (talk) 01:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother. I am now and then on Wikipedia mostly to give an advise on Poland-related subjects, don't want to get involved in the administrative affairs, recalls or something like that. As I said befere, it's a small thing; who cares for orphaned kids these days anyway? Thanks anyway. greg park avenue (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent decision to delete Tim De Groot, artist and musician from the Grand Rapids, number one proves that you are not from the area. While I realize that this man is not on the National scene, in the GR area he is pretty well known. A personal friend of Mark Hekman, Paul Collins and Richard DeVos, ALL of who are listed as well. This is by no means a vanity article, but, rather a true Grand Rapidian that should be recognized. I've noticed that also on the list of notables is Maynard James Keenan.....Tim De Groot attended the same art school, Kendall School of Art and Design, during the same years as he and yet, Maynard still refuses to acknowledge ever living in Grand Rapids. "Notable" people from Grand Rapids ought to be just that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingSethos (talk • contribs) 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Keilana,

Now that the decision is to keep the Letter To God article, who should remove the AFD notification from the article page?

Thanks,

--Gokoby (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the CSD and AfD tags from the articles as I am the one that initiated it. I have posted logs of this on all the talk pages of the users involved and also on the article discussion page Jdchamp31 (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I Was Editing The Article To Meet The Critera And You Deleted It!! I Spend Ages Writing That Out.. Its Not Very Fair Is It? (talk) 15:55 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I Was Editing The Article To Meet The Critera And You Deleted It!! I was working to make it meet the criteria and expand the article, but it was deleted within like 20 minutes of it being created.

You recently (17:12, 30 December 2007) deleted the article James Machon on the grounds of "CSD G12: Blatant Copyright infringement". I believe that this C12 deletion is in error as "copied" text is from

""MACHON, JAMES" entry". Medal of Honor Recipients: Civil War (M-Z). U.S. Army Center of Military History, United States Army. Retrieved 2007-12-30. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); External link in |publisher= (help).

As a work of the U.S. Government (U.S. military), this publication is in the public domain. Rather than overturn your deletion, I prefer that you would please restore this deleted edit. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 17:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did want to (1) offer you the courtesy of review rather than just overturning your delete and (2) provide you with more information in case you run across this type deletion request again. Thanks for restoring. I'll make sure that there is a clear public domain tag on the article. — ERcheck (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put back the article for James Machon. It was not copyright infringement. Furthermore without being told what site it was infringing upon I cannot defend its contents. Since I suspect it was based upon the Home Of Heroes website, I got most of the information from the [Army Medal of Honor website], which is in the public domain and freely distributable. Therefore the Home of Heroes site itself cannot claim copyright infringement over something that was generated from a government site.--Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will make sure I put better citations next time.--Kumioko (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you closed the AFD on this article with a consensus to delete. The article has not yet been deleted.TheRingess (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough if you think there is a COI. Not giving lists of external URLs for organisations not notable enough to have their own article is pretty well established everywhere as far as I know and mainly this is SPA accounts spamming but I agree in Miss Bethany's case she was not entirely of this type. --BozMo talk 22:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally as far as I can see from the edit hisory I only reverted Miss Bethany's edit once (unless she uses socks: I didn't check that) and the linkspam addition had already been reverted by someone else. This list has also been put back by several other people. Perhaps I shouldn't be so touchy about false accusations... --BozMo talk 22:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you performed a speedy deletion of the above article. There has been many a deletion discussion regarding this issue, and it has been determined that all Olympic athletes are notable enough to receive their own article, whether or not they were medal winners, per the clause in WP:BIO of athletes who competed at the top level in their field. I don't agree with it myself, but unfortunately that's the way things go with notability. Anyhow, I have (grudgingly) undone your deletion and thought I would leave you a note. Cheers, CP 01:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. On my RFA, someone asked me what policy I would change, and this was definitely it. This fellow managed to attain 36th in his sport once and then disappeared off the face of the Earth. When the revolution comes, his article will not be spared! Cheers, CP 01:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree this policy is daft, and runs completely against notability. I would have speedied if I had seen it: should we have a go at fixing policy?--BozMo talk 01:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The individual who created that page has created one on probably nearly every bobsledder and skier who has ever competed in international competition (Category:Possibly living people is infested with them). I'd be surprised if he didn't notice that it disappeared. Also, it creates the disambig problem, because when you get as many competitors as you do in the Olympic, there's bound to be a few with the exact same name. Being the stubborn jerk that I am, I've had to create pages for all these people to avoid the confusion (in case you wondered about the irony of me being in the middle of creating Jonas Jonsson (sport shooter) while complaining about pointless athlete articles).

On the other hand, I've always wanted a Wikipedia article. I may move to Botswana and become their first Olympic skier. Cheers, CP 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I've always thought. There are plenty of "list" sources that document their achievements, their birth dates and, if it's a good print source, maybe their death dates. But having sought information on many an underperforming Olympian, I would wager that out of all Olympians, maybe 1 out 50 gets the substantial coverage required usually under WP:N, and that's usually only if they live long enough to be the oldest from their country or take part in some "Country X still has one athlete who remembers the 1920 Olympics" feature. Take out the medalists, and the substantial coverage becomes almost nil, unless they did something else notable, in which case they're meeting WP:N for something completely different. I've never quite understood why athletes get a special excepting clause. The worst part is, the clause somehow manages to trump the general rules of WP:N, so if you nominate one for deletion (never done it myself, but seen it happen), the clause is invoked, trumps the regular rules and adds to the pile of previous AfDs that are copy and pasted into every future argument. Cheers, CP 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, seeing as how Mr. Baker's creator is definitely going to notice that it's been removed again, I think the discussion has already begun. If you'd like, I can come up with lists of more or less any size of athletes - both medal winners and not - that don't come within a mile of meeting our policies, including several that I (again, grudgingly) created. Just point me where you want me to go to make arguments / provide examples. I'm not one of those people who just talks big and bails out. Cheers, CP 02:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd love to. I need a little time to think about it, dinner time beckons, but leave me a note with your ideas and I'll see what I can do to help/contribute. Cheers, CP 02:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about deleting baseball players who played less than five major league matches? Or first class cricketers who scored less than 300 runs? What about football players who only played in the Scottish Second Division? The point of having clear rules is that they allow everyone to get on with writing articles, rather than arguing the toss about who is a marginal sportsman or not. If you want to try to change the notability rules then obviously you're free to have a go, but the consensus of opinion on this article should give you pause for thought. Unless, of course, you think you're right and that everyone else is wrong. Nick mallory (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure everyone else is wrong (or worse). I agree we should go for policy, not unilateral deletions. At present the sport stuff is inconsistent with general notability rules. Actually under the sports rules I qualify for my own article as far as I can see (with a British Universities Gold medal to my name) which is ridiculous as Wikipedia barely has an article on the sport. If the articles are too shallow then (as per minor hogwarts characters) perhaps we should propose a compromise and redirect the name to a list article. Should start by collecting the silliest examples?--BozMo talk 08:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I'm not going to disagree with you on the need for many of the articles you've mentioned to go. I can't defend them, even if I wanted to. But I think your note is a little unnecessarily getting after the messenger. I find it difficult to disparage someone for recommending a one line article with tenuous (at best) notability go up for debate. Leave Keilana out of this, and defend your position on why this article should stay (over there, not here). LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, it's quite clear that someone does not meet the notability requirements when they do not have enough reliable sources to back up the claim of notability. Many articles about sports players without any sources have survived AFD because they are sports players. I could create a hoax article on someone in an Olympics, and it would probably survive AFD. Keilana^talk_(recall) 15:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please make sure to remove an AfD entry from its original log date when relisting. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have missed it, but there was a second article co-nom'd in this AfD. Your closing comment does not address the second article, and it does still exist. I expect you intended to close as Delete both. JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Utah_Preparatory_Academy&action=edit&section=1[reply]

Hi, I have been reading the controversy that has erupted at village pump over your deletion of the James Barker article. You may have a valid point on the notability of very early Olympic competitors. (If I remember correctly, the US delegation at the first Olympics consisted of some guys who happened to be in Athens at the time.) I, however, have not commented there, as I really don't care in the long run if these type of article stay around as perma-stubs or the information is merged elsewhere. This has brought up an issue that I am concerned with, however, which is the proper use of CSD A7. Several commenters at village pump have noted that, regardless of the merits of this article vis-a-vis WP:V, competing at the Olympics is an assertion of notability, which should have made this article not eligible for CSD A7. What are your thoughts on this? Dsmdgold (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right, I shouldn't have used A7 the first time. That was a legit mistake. The second time, I didn't really use A7, that was more making a point, as you can see from the deletion summary. Thanks for your concern. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although I must say that communicating through deletion summaries is probably not a good idea. Dsmdgold (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello- I am the person who created the article for The Jazz Singer DVD. I did not create it for advertising purposes, but rather for reference. I had bought the DVD set, and as mentioned it was filled with numerous old and obscure movie titles. I created this article so that anyone who maybe also bought the set and wants to research the movie titles included, can go to one simple page and do so. Please do not delete this page, but rather clean it up or give me advice if you feel necessary. Thank you. Mpmcarthur78 12:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(copied to User talk:Mpmcarthur78) You may want to see Wikipedia's notability policy and Wikipedia's advertising policy. I've looked at the article and it really doesn't show why the article is notable. If you can find reliable, 3rd party sources to reference the article, then it may be kept. You can also find suggestions at the deletion debate. Thanks for your contributions. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 19:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article any different than any of the following: Walt Disney Treasures: Wave Seven, Looney Tunes Golden Collection: Volume 1, Popeye the Sailor: 1933-1938, Volume 1, The Woody Woodpecker and Friends Classic Cartoon Collection, etc. These are all articles on DVD collections that for the most part have no third-party sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpmcarthur78 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please copyedit that article please, and if you do can you say that you have on the requests page. Thanks.  Sunderland06  20:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, Thanks.  Sunderland06  20:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you finished copy editing it, because somebody said it had bad english and grammar.  Sunderland06  22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did happy-melon decline, and is it finished. Thanks.  Sunderland06  22:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will this sort out the npov tag.  Sunderland06  22:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copyediting it i didnt write the majority of it the POV was there from the start, and by the way you mispelt done in the edit summary. Sunderland06  22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward moment evolves where I realise I haven't spoken French for about a month, and now really really suck at it (more than before). — Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...so that was you? *confused* And I'd like to take O#5 to FAC (great work!) but I currently have one up, and it's bad practice to have 2 up at the same time. Plus The Chaser's War on Everything (said FAC) really needs attention ;) — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*wonders why your name was "Cricket"*...if you wanna put it up, that would be sneaky awesome - I'd be sure to help out in that case. Go for it! :) And don't worry about RfA, I'm feeling better already. — Dihydrogen Monoxide 00:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had just recently added an article which was deleted by you, I ask why was it? User:phantasmo_375 9:52 January 1,2008

Hello Keilana. Your user name is cool! I have a question: What is 'Committed identity'? I saw that on your user page. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Stubs_and_lists. Looks like a consensus to change WP:BIO might not be that hard. --BozMo talk 09:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keilana,

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, post a message on the discussion page or join our IRC channel #vandalproof.

Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 12:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Keilana! Thanks for the reply. How can I add these 'secret string'? If some hijack my account, can I save my account? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keilana, I was just trying to edit this article when you deleted it. Don't you think that the list of solo shows, including at the San Diego Museum of Art, along with the list of awards constitute an indication of significance? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Please note that sources are not needed to get past WP:CSD#A7, only an assertion of importance/significance, which is already in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I've tagged it with {underconstruction} for the moment because I have to do other things at the moment (work keeps getting in the way of more interesting things!), but I'll definitely have a good dig around for sources by tomorrow. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting that the artcle for the Office for the Promotion of Women in Science be re-posted with the inclusion of the line :

This office is one of only a few dozen promotional offices at institutions across the United States and is pioneering a "Girl Geeks" website which includes unique biographies of successful scientists at Rutgers.

I feel that the Office is noteworthy, being that it is setting an example for other institutions and is maintaining its own comprehensive website documenting the lives of women scientists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SciWomen (talk • contribs) 16:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted International Worship in English citing "article about a club or group that does not assert significance"; however, if you reviewed the link to Bill Majors, an article about the group's founder that seemes poised to survive an AfD--you've seen that Bill Majors was made an Honorary Citizen of Seoul, in part because he founded this very group. Furthermore, this group is the administrative (though, not conceptual) fruit of Kyung-Chik Han (also an internal link inside International Worship in English), a winner of the Templeton Prize, as IWE was founded in 1998 under the auspices of Rev. Han, who passed away two years later. So, IWE is not some random church group, but the international arm of the main parent church of 500 worldwide for which Rev. Han was awarded the Templeton Prize. Davidabram (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Glad it was appreciated. Acalamari 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know why The Boot (Norfolk, VA) was deleted. CSD A7: Person/group/organization/web content; doesn't indicate importance/significance. I would have to strongly argue that a restaurant that is educating its community about the local food movement and featuring local musicians and artists is important and significant. This restaurant has ties to both the international Slow Food movement and the national Buy Fresh Buy Local movement which are both very significant. Please let me know how i can add to this page so that it can stay online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megan.fro (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Keilana, recently you speedied this article under A7 (organization). The "companion article" is up for AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Bill Majors and the db-bio tag was removed from Bill Majors as not a candidate for speedy. I'm wondering what part of A7 the IWE article fell under? If I remember correctly,(I saw the article before it was speedied but I'm not admin so I can't see the history now) it asserted importance and notability, it had three sources to verify and, IMO, should have gone to AfD if anything. I'm not sure what will happen with the Bill Majors article, but I think the IWE article should get the same/similar discussion from other editors instead of speedy. If my hunch is correct, (and again I'm not admin, so I don't know), the IWE speedy tag was added by a SPA account, the same one that added it to the Bill Majors article. Your thoughts are most appreciated! Your talk is on my watchlist, thanks! Keeper | 76 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it was did not assert the notability of the subject; I did not know that the other article was up for AFD, the article simply said that it was "a Christian ministry formed on Easter in 1998 by Pastor Bill Majors at Young Nak Presbyterian Church in Myeongdong Seoul, South Korea." It also said when the earlier church was founded, but really made no claim of notability, hence I deleted it. If the author or someone else were to recreate the article and it asserted notability and cited the sources that were there, it would not get speedied. Hope this helps, I'm copying it to your talk page just in case. Keilana^talk_(recall) 21:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Keilana. I appreciate your quick response. I had seen a version of the IWE article that had three sources - does that exist anywhere? Keeper | 76 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're quick! Thanks for "dropping everything". Until the AfD for the companion article closes, and depending on the result of said discussion, I won't pursue this speedy much further, I've many other things I'm working on right now (and you appear to be too!). Thanks again, happy editing! Keeper | 76 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer to undelete. I'll let you know the result of the Bill Majors AfD. If it's keep, I think an undelete/procedural AfD nom would be appropriate for continuity. It's amazing what we get ourselves involved in, isn't it? I've never heard of Bill Majors, and never would have w/o wikipedia, but it turns out it was a pretty good newbie contrib that got AfD'd really quickly, and the IWE article was speedied right behind it. Thanks again for all your help! Keeper | 76 22:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to block the IP too? The first person didn't even break 3RR, and the IP did. Why didn't you block them both if anything? The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Keilana, this is my THIRD attempt to get a reply from you on your decision to delete the article for Vpmi. I am writing to request that the article for Vpmi be restored. You identified it as blatant advertising. The discussion thread has been included here for you. I am concerned that administrators on Wikipedia are more focused on deleting content than on working with content providers to make the content valuable and appropriate for this online encyclopedia. If you feel the article has blatant advertising, please give me the opportunity to revise it so that it meets Wikipedia standards. I will point out that the article is about a notable project management tool. The language used in writing the article was taken primarily from 3rd party articles in relevant technology publications about the Vpmi solution (see reference section of article). In addition, the software is referenced and talked about at length in two books that are currently used by classrooms across the country for educating graduate students on project and portfolio management (also included as links in the reference section of the article). In light of this, your feedback regarding exactly what needs to be changed is greatly appreciated. Please reply as soon as possible.--Tilleyg (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me if I'm butting in, Keilana. Tilleyg, I reviewed the contents of the deleted article and I fully support its deletion. The article was blatant advertising of a non-notable subject. Dreadstar † 20:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in also, I reviewed the contents of the deleted article also, support its deletion and agree with the reasoning given above.--Hu12 (talk) 22:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to everyone who has commented on this particular subject, I would ask for your suggestions as to how the article could be rewritten to be included in Wikipedia. If you could highlight those areas that stand out as blatant advertising, it would be appreciated. This article was built using the Microsoft Project template as an example. I believe the software is notable as defined in the Wikipedia:Notability section where it says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Should you disagree, I think it would be reasonable to ask why the sources listed do not qualify for notability. Furthermore, I think it would be prudent to do the same critical review of all software solutions listed on the page List of project management software. I read through many of these and would argue that based on your justification, none of these should be included. The Vpmi article made reference to multiple third party reviews of the application as well as books that have published information on Vpmi as a notable project management solution. I appreciate your feedback. --Tilleyg (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]