User talk:Brianyoumans

Hello, Brianyoumans, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg L Greer page has been updated and major media content has been added with consistent syntax. In addition please refer to analytics which show almost 400 views per month. Proof that the page is garneting views and interest. My suggestion is to keep greeralivetoday. Void your deletion suggestion. --Greeralivetoday (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Provide further clarification on your request for deletion in Ref: Gregg L Greer Article.

Please review process in which editor Brianyoumans may be using to delete articles-the editor seems to be using a personally subjective standard that may not fall firmly within the Wikipedi:verifiablilty guidelines. Case in point Brianyoumans "I need to seed some notability," re: Gregg L Greer Article. Furthermore Brianyoumans editing seems to be causing an environment of adversity which could prove harmful to Wikipedia. Review rule #3,4,1

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following: 1.Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. 2.Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. 3.Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified [citation needed] tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. 4.Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. 5.Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.--Greeralivetoday (talk) 13:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

--Greeralivetoday (talk) 13:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your guidance and recommendations about the correct way to solve this disputes. kardrak 4:45 UTC, 10 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 04:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in discussing the deletion of our organization. Your name was one of the ones listed as part of the discussion. Our organization, WritersUA, is part of the technical writing community and provides a unique and valuable service that transcends the for-profit elements of our business. Our web site is highly regarded within our community and we can provide references from numerous notable people within our profession. In addition to a wealth of original content, we offer industry surveys on skills and salaries and provide a resource directory that is much valued by our constituency. All of that is free to the public and provided without vendor advertising. Our single for-profit event is a conference that has been held for fifteen years. In that time it has attracted over 8,000 people from around the world and is one of the very few gatherings of people specifically interested in improving software documentation. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you at your convenience. Thank you, Joe Welinske President, WritersUA Resource Directory: http://www.writersua.com/resource.htm 2007 Salary Survey: http://www.writersua.com/surveys/salary07/index.html 2007 Skills Survey: http://www.writersua.com/surveys/skillstech06/index.html Joe Welinske 20:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I think a period of a few days is a little short since lots of people don't get on that often. But if there absolutely must be a merger, and I see your point about articles about dorms in every college, then it should be much more detailed than the one that was put together earlier. A list of capacities and famous alumni is of no use to anybody. Since I'm a ND student I'll try to work on it since I generally know what is relevant. Only after the List articles are finished should the others be redirected to it or deleted though, not before. And how exactly are you supposed to archive Talk material Sillywebby 20:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell did you merge all of the Notre Dame residence hall articles into a list?? Why would anybody want to look at a list of dorms that tells them nothing but how many people live there and what famous people lived there? That tells you nothing about the dorm itself. You could get that off the school's website. These articles had a ton of information about the unique traditions and styles of each dorm. I reverted as much as possible but at least 3 articles have been lost permanently. Idiotic decision on your part. Don't merge them again. Lots of information lost, thanks to you. It also appears that you "suggested" this merge and then did it before anybody else could throw in their thoughts about it. This place doesn't revolve around you. Do you even go to Notre Dame? Sillywebby 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,dont you think that you are stupid? merging some important information. Because of you, i dont have enough information of my school cause YOU delete it.Fuck off you. Fuckoff 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion for an addition to the Images help material; where shall I send it? Basically, I think a warning is needed about the use of tables and images - articles frequently start with tables on the right, and if an image is used and is on the right, it ends up under the table, with any following text below and to the left - potentially creating an unsightly and potentially misleading gap. ("Hey, I guess that's the whole article... kind short, wasn't it?") I have now corrected two articles that had that same problem. It is a particularly insidious problem because if you edit an article section by section everything looks fine, because the table isn't in the section you are editing. --Brianyoumans 08:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain your view about this issue at the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style discussion page after looking at related information there. This way, you'll be able to make sure that your concerns aren't already mentioned or currently being discussed.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-24 09:10Z

Restored to last good edit. Glad to be of service. Deizio talk 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in a silly editing war over an entry for Charles de Granville, a French apple liqueur. The entry was put up by the producer, was badly written, and did not have a neutral POV. After several rounds of trying to deal with this guy, I thought my last version was about as good of an article as this subject deserves - and more - and the guy is still insisting on deleting it and replacing it with his own (which is a bit better than it used to be, but still not very good.) Could someone else chime in and help persuade this guy that Wikipedia is not for marketing? Or maybe lock down my last version of the article? You can see the extensive discussion on the talk page. (I have to admit, my first entry wasn't very diplomatic.)

Hello, it's good that you have taken the issue to the talk page of the article. If the problem continues, please try one of the methods listed at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. It may be good to introduce a third party to the dispute, as listed on the page. Cheers, Tangotango 08:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comment there - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for the Wat Manorom edit. I didn't make it up to the top level as you pointed out and when I did reach the top level, I discovered a wealth of credible references. Nice find.

I notice that you were the admin who protected Apollo moon landing hoax; could you perhaps do the same for What happened on the Moon? I suppose we could try just warning or blocking the IP address that is doing it, but I suspect the page will end up with the same sort of problems as the main hoax page. --Brianyoumans 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's worth protecting that page yet, just because of one disagreement with only 2 reverts per party. Make sure that you do not end up violating WP:3RR though, even if you are doing the correct thing. If more happens, you can write to me again, or if I'm not around leave a request at WP:RFPP. Try to discuss things on the talk page first, though. —Mets501 (talk) 20:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reverted this time and asked the anon to use the talk page. —Mets501 (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted it agian. —Mets501 (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps do the latest revert on this article? And, what do you think should be the next step? I admit that the last time I asked might have been a bit early to take action, but, if you look at the talk page, things have deteriorated a bit. Brianyoumans 00:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, I don't know what to do about that article. I've reverted him again, on the article and talk page (where he told you to "go eff yourself"). The user seems unwilling to co-operate. I still have no idea why he is calling factual information "government propoganda" either. The paragraph does not say "this movie is WRONG", it just presents the results of a poll showing most people regard the moon landing as fact. —Mets501 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I just reverted him on his userpage and gave him another NPA warning. If he makes anymore personal attacks, he should be listed on WP:PAIN since he's had at least two warnings for personal attacks now. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a report at WP:PAIN. Feel free to add to it if you wish. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 09:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1 07:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC). If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a fellow AfD frequenter, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable.-Kmaguir1 07:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)

Bottom line: welcome to bell hooks, be aware of the RfC, and feel free to join it. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I swear that was not meant to be vandalism. It is true; there are many online posts and bashing sites for Meryl Getline. But, you are right. A dumb internet rumor and/or joke should not be on Wikipedia. mikey 05:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I could find you a source for the Ellen Church thing as well. mikey 14:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't worry about it, I don't really support it, not that I'm against it. mikey 19:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I should apologize for my comment in response to your pointing out my lack of prolificness in editing. I've been pouring over WP policies for what seems like forever now (though it's more like a few weeks), and I've just run across the "meatpuppet" issue, and against the posted advisory not to take it personally in WP:GD, I believe I did. So, I apologize for my newbie-ness, but please be aware that I do care greatly about WP policies as much as I care about freeware and the AR article, and am not just a "meatpuppet" sent to participate in an AfD. To be honest, I am just not naturally "bold" about editing other people's work, it feels a bit strange, but I know a bit about this subject, and am attempting to learn the ropes of the processes here. Taikara 20:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I've added a slight bit of info to my user page and tricked out my sig a bit, so maybe I won't appear quite so newbie in future discussions. You know, I don't really have much to contribute outside of freeware, but maybe I could help out in the AfD volunteering, it has been kind of fun researching policies. Regards ^^ Taikara | Talk 03:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, and sorry about this, I'm hoping for some advice. At this point, I'm resigned to the possibility that the AR article will be deleted (I sort of figured it was likely after it was nominated, but that wasn't going to keep me from trying to prevent it :P) - however, there's a user who's had some... let's just say bad history... with the AR community that's rather effectively mucking up the discussion. I've tried to get the discussion back on track, but there's a lot of attacking/ranting going on, and I'm unsure how to proceed, and starting to lose my temper. Obviously, he's welcome to his opinion, but the way he's expressing it is rather inflammatory, imho. I've considered an admin alert, but I have no idea if that is acceptable, or worth bothering with for this situation. Could you please advise? Also, I've floundered around a bit with a good way to get started helping out beyond the AR article, and there's just so much, it's a bit overwhelming, which is why I never got involved before :( -- Taikara | Talk 02:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, you've been really helpful, and I appreciate it. I think I'll just stop responding to him full stop, as I've already tried the "we agree to disagree, please stop" tactic. Unfortunately, I've experienced this before, and I should know from that experience that saying so much as "hello" is inviting a tirade. I think I was just caught a bit off guard by him here on WP. I think I'll try to check out things I'm familiar with as I think of them, that was an excellent suggestion! Taikara | Talk 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are all created by the same user, tied to the same school, and none of them assert notablity. Don't try to personalize this [1] it is in bad taste. I could care less if the article is kept or not. But if you vote keep, and make a comment such as you did, add to it, clean it up, and demonstrate it is worth keeping. As of now its still sloppy, ill-sourced, and of dubious notablity. Arbusto 05:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. - Blood red sandman 11:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services: Science, Management, and Engineering is being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 September 12, and the article has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services Science, Management, and Engineering. Uncle G 18:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there :) I started a new article (A Land Remembered - it's a really good book), and it hasn't been nominated for deletion yet, yay! It's just an itsy bitsy stub right now though (was a little nervous about it getting deleted lol), so I'm planning on expanding it and adding another article about the author, Patrick Smith. I suppose he's notable enough, having been nominated for multiple Pulitzers and Nobels and a plethora of other awards. I just have to get down to the library to get some good research material for citations, all I really have at my house is the book. So, thanks again for being encouraging. As for my question - AR somehow miraculously withstood the AfD, but the person who nominated it is now hitting the article with all sorts of tags - weasel words, NPOV, merge, etc. I agree that it should probably be checked for POV, but is it "normal" on WP for articles to be tagged for merging directly after a keep consensus on an AfD? From the examples I've seen, and even another AfD I've participated in, merging is a potential consensus option. It seems to me that he's just sore that his nomination was contested and denied, but I'm not familiar enough with standard procedure on WP yet to make that assumption. If it's not normal, I'm not sure what to do about it (nevermind that I don't know what exactly to do if it IS normal, either). Sorry to bother you with this sort of stuff again, but you've been nice, and I don't really know anyone else to ask yet.

Also, congratulations on the new addition to your family!! (sorry if that's intrusive, I read over the AfD linked above and noticed your comment - can't learn the ropes if you don't check things out, you know) Ja ne, Taikara | Talk 20:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian as you said i lifted your deletion tag on Sofiur Rahman. Please ask me any question in the article's talk page.Tarif Ezaz Bangladesh 16:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You don't see my prod in the history because a) the article is under a slightly different name and b) even if it was under the same name I think you wouldn't see the history prior to the article's first deletion. In any case, the article is a recreation of a previously deleted article so it can be speedily deleted. Thanks for telling me about it. I have removed your PROD tag and replaced with the appropriate speedy tag. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the paragraph in Horace Mann that you flagged as having NPOV issues. Please take a look - I think it's much better now and that you might consider removing the NPOV warning. --Zippy 07:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I have removed the deletion tag, as the article has nothing to do with advertisement. It is a big Greek Club that relates to MG Automobiles, and we do not sell anything. Thus, there is no intention to advertise. Even subscription to the club is free. Please let me know if you have any other concerns

Perry Gogas 11:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering my questions about US academia. I wasn't expecting anyone to reply to me personally, so I really do appreciate it. Emeraude 17:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the time you took to explain it to me. Your idea of the MG Car Club which is actually the oldest and with the most members is good! I will find some time to draft an article on that. Perry Gogas 08:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehh...you can take out the radisson and hilton if you wish...it's just htat there's this giant hole in WIndsor right next to the building that's generating huge controversy in Windsor right now... RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

very well, but it's late and i have to head out shortly. i will work on the hilton, radisson, and Cleary Auditorium (now part of St. Clair College) articles tomorrow. RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 03:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A little more noteriety....enough to save it?? Bacl-presby 00:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Thank you!! Bacl-presby 13:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear this up: Accreditation is not a criteria for inclusion or deletion. If you look at my edit history you will notice I have started articles on unaccredited religious schools ( such as California Biblical University and Seminary, Golden State School of Theology, California Pacific School of Theology, and others). Seminaries are places of higher education and issue degrees, there are four different religious organizations recognized by the USDE that accredit. They are not absolved from academic oversight. Arbusto 03:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now this I would argue is family history and doesn't have a place: John Frelinghuysen (1727-1754) --plange 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool idea-- this might be of interest: WP:MILHIST#Notability.... I agree this one is pretty borderline, but since I guess you'd call me an inclusionist, I'm erring on the side of keeping... --plange 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed it somehow. It's gone now. - Bobet 11:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you have anything better to do than deleting pages, scrapping other people's hard work ? Go to Hell! Terveetkadet

You are pathetic. You keep trying to destroy other people's work instead of creating something yourself. What do you know about punk rock, about Canada bands, about Die Mannequin that makes you pretend this is non-notable material? This band is signed on EMI for God's sake! This is not junk, you are just a frustrated asshole because I told you upfront what I thought of the way you do things on wikipedia. Go to Hell. Terveetkadet

Die Mannequin are signed on EMI, featured in many publications, they opened for Guns'N'Roses and already have one album and will release another in the beginning of 2007 besides having played on the "Next Big Thing" stage of the EdgeFest this year. Why do you keep wasting your time and mine trying to destroy something when you could just mind your own business and do something else ? You are still pathetic. I am not the one who wanted to make this personal but you keep trying to destroy my hard work and that sucks. Terveetkadet

7 pages added, 10's of pages deleted: you are definitely a loser who destroys cause he is unable to create anything interesting205.237.53.91

Can't you leave me and my articles alone? I don't want anything to do with you so please leave me alone... I'd be happy to remove my AFD tag for Adamu Tesfaw if you did the same for Die Mannequin and Care Failure. And you can be sure you won't hear of me anymore after that. You're the worst pain in the ass I've ever met.Terveetkadet

Yeah, I have no idea if it is even accurate; that kid created thousands of nonsense pages and edits under hundreds of different accounts. Once in a while he created something valid, but how would we know? Personally, I think that if someone can't be bothered to write several good sentences explaining exactly what something is, along with its significance, they shouldn't bother putting up a stub. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian, I've removed your proposed deletion of The Design and Evolution of C++. I'd say it is probably the second most important book about C++, after The C++ Programming Language and that book is unfortunately also still a stub (added at the same time by me). --MarSch 14:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expect a lot can be written about it. --MarSch 16:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your message. I've checked out your AFD for the subject article and it looks fine to me. It can be a bit onerous trying to WP:AFD something but if you use the instructions then you can't go too far wrong. Once you place the {{subst:afd1}} at the top of your chosen page, you can select the Preloaded debate link within the AFD template and the dirty work is done for you... Hope that helps. Feel free to get in touch if you have any other issues to discuss! Cheers. Budgiekiller 22:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the lead in looking at these articles. As a member of the Wiki Project for Ohio articles, I strongly urge you to take up your case at that project team directly. Articles tagged by and maintained by a dedicated Wiki project team should never be arbitrarily removed or deleted without consensus of that team (which you may easily get, but the team needs to know!). Thanks, and best wishes! Scott Mingus 17:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to congratulate you for spotting and listing these articles for deletion. I'm a librarian, and I want as many articles about libraries that make sense, but this does not make sense, and diverts efforts from writing articles about the many important ones that deserve to be written about.

The person who started them has also been adding many inappropriate category tags, etc., and he should use his energy more productively. I am now reverting the "American Magazine" tags he put on many many UK journals. He doesn't seem to know geography, but maybe he will learn some here. (smile)

I am in general an inclusionist, but I think the other stuff you are listing on AfD are things that should be deleted & I'll support you on the articles where support is necessary. See you there. DGG 22:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a stock message addressed to some active participants in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adams County Public Library. The debate is closed and the result was merge all to their respective locales. You are invited to help with carrying out the mergers; please see the instructions in the AfD closing note. Sandstein 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, i appreciate it. --Striver 05:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response. Though I don't necessarily agree with the notability criteria, at least there is a defined rationale.

Good Evening Brianyoumans!

I sincerely apologize for not writing that article properly in the first place. Please forgive me. I have now fixed the article by writing it in the correct third-person perspective; I hope that the renovations are satisfactory to you sir.

Regards, From --George Thompson 09:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to be a controversial topic, and there seems to be at least a weak attempt to assert notability. I'd send it back to AFD, since the previous AFD was a year ago. --Coredesat 01:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid redirecting a created page unless you've discussed it with the creator first. I grew up in Westerville, so I watch all the articles about it like a hawk. This article stays. Thanks! Stubbleboy 01:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You can take it to AFD, however the fact that the library is also home to a museum for the Anti-Saloon League makes it encyclopedic. I've added a link on the page and a section entitled Anti-Saloon League. I'd like to think that if a student were researching about the Anti-Saloon League they could find it by accessing this page. I've also removed the merge tag. Thanks! Stubbleboy 03:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh and I never said discuss the merging with me, I said the creator. Look back and you can clearly see I never claimed to be the creator of said article. Stubbleboy 04:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the deletion tag. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost ramp (second nomination). --NE2 23:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; I think the concept is what is most important (and I have expanded unused highway a bit). I don't think we need a list of every place a highway has ever sat unused. --NE2 23:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This all came about because we had a really bad rename as the result of a contested AFD nomination. Renaming an article "List of unused highways" when every single entry was for a ramp, not a road section, just isn't working... Georgewilliamherbert 20:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M8WestStreetRamps.jpg is not ramps, but the proposed main line of the M8. There are some other examples of non-ramps, such as this:

"Near Katy, most of the segment of the Grand Parkway between the Katy Freeway and U.S. 59 was constructed as a mix of main lanes and frontage roads, resulting in a string of split intersections. There are highway stubs at the transitions between main lanes and frontage roads. Although the road was constructed to make it relatively easy to upgrade to a freeway, there are no current plans to do so."

--NE2 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think list of unused highways is a bad idea for an article, but look where the deletion discussion went. Unused highway is an attempt to cover the concept without a huge list of examples. --NE2 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to have missed a couple of examples in a list of about fifty. The fact remains: the article is almost entirely about highway ramps, and is currently clearly misnamed. The deletion discussion went badly for a number of reasons, including people who like that particular listcruft, and a really terrible rename concept, and a number of sources being ignored repeatedly. What we probably should have is an article on unused freeway ramps (Unused highway ramp, redirect from Stub ramp), an article on unused freeway road segments (Unused highway), and shorter lists on each one (List of unused highway ramps, (List of unused highways). The current situation isn't helping anyone. Georgewilliamherbert 20:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A ramp and a highway are sometimes hard to tell apart - some "ramps" go on for miles. However, I suppose someone could make some criteria up and then sort the article into ramps and highways. Then, a few months down the line, the article could be split in two. Of course, as a deletionist what I would do is go through and eliminate everything that is unreferenced and sounds non-notable - which would probably reduce the article by 75% or more. Unfortunately, the "highwayspotters" wouldn't stand for it, I'm sure. :-) --Brianyoumans 21:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was going to say - there is no clear line between ramps and highways. And wherever we draw the line, there will be some places that have both, and so the two lists will be duplicative. --NE2 21:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the prod tag from this article: IMHO the only survivor of such a crash must be notable. If you disagree, please submit an AfD. Ringbark 15:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with some of your concerns, but I would like to be given the chance to provide all my documentation before things are deleted. As you have probably noticed, I have added links to relevant info all day long, and Im not even close to being finished.

I do have concerns about adding categories to this, as Idont want to libelously associate possibly incriminating categories for which I have little or no direct materials backing it up. I need to be given a fair opportunity to present my argument as to why the particular categories are pertinent.

However, I am VERY familiar with the legal ramifications of defamation and libel and I assure you, if you can point something out to me that might be potentially libelous and that need further documentation, then I will certainly be willing to oblige.

Also, I really feel the need to keep the "Notice to SSH and Airola" diclaimer in the page, please advise why you think it should not be included. I do not want to give SSH or Airola the impression that this cannot be informally disputed or modified.

208.54.160.144 22:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was on vacation when you proposed the Calgary Esperanto Centre for deletion. Could you link me to the discussion of this article's deletion? Thank you. --Chuck SMITH 17:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, TEFLWatch, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TEFLWatch. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: The note above is the standard AfD courtesy note for people that have edited an article sent to AfD. You originally proposed this article for deletion 1 November 2006; the article's author subsequently removed the PROD tag. Here's the article's edit history. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between prod, CSD and AfD in your eyes? I have never encountered a {{prod}} before.

You may be right about the article. What do you think about the template. I think it is still O.K. except I am not sure that it belongs on the Kraft Foods page. Comments? TonyTheTiger 20:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Musashi experts needed for discussion about Coating (philosophy) and other similar articles. I marked a few others with PROD, but decided it was better to bring in a wider audience. Neier 11:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, my opinion remains the same, and I do not concur with a merge to Mexican Cuisine since Tacos are not just Mexican any more than Pizzas are Italian. Besides that, it may be worth noting that AfD is not a vote, but an expression of opinions. Perhaps that was just a slip of the tongue on your part, but given that you did say it, I felt it was appropriate to inform you of that. FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do realize why you made that comment, having added another entry to the AfD, however, it really didn't change my opinion, and honestly, my real concern was the vote remark. That's not what AfD is about, but so many people think it is, that I, and many other people have gotten into the habit of reminding folks who do remark on votes in the AfD context that it's not a vote. I am, however, now troubled by the statement that you didn't even examine the article. Yes, I did see you're just completing a nomination, but even in that case, you should examine an article carefully, and not make statements about it. I honestly don't see why anyone would assume it was a hoax, or ridiculous. The ingredients in a given kind of food are very much definable, and while in some cases, it may be difficult to cover them(and yes, I do realize that potentially anything can be put into a taco, or on a pizza), it doesn't mean that some description is impossible. List of taco fillings was obviously meant to do that, and while I don't think it needs to be its own article, I do think the information itself is valuable. Given that taco is a relatively minimal article, I say merge. It'd be one thing if that article was as complete as hamburger, hot dog or pizza but it is not. FrozenPurpleCube 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the future, I hope you do look before you leap, and that you keep in mind that AfD's are not a vote. FrozenPurpleCube 04:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I posted my thoughts on there. Fundamentaldan 17:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you lived in the Ilam, Avonhead or Burnside areas in Christchurch, New Zealand you would know of the Westgrove OGs and their activities. Stop trying to delete the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.149.192 (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Well, if it does, provide some references the next time you create an article on them - probably some newspaper articles that mention them. And try adding the info to the Christchurch article instead of creating an article just for the gang. --Brianyoumans 15:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm a resident of Avonhead, a suburb in Christchurch, New Zealand. I recently did some research on the Westgrove OGs gang, as they have become notorious in our area and other parts of Christchurch.

I visited their well - written Wikipedia article, only to find it had a warning on it mentioning a deletion.

If you lived here you would know the gang exists, and you would know that they are worthy of a Wiki article. Please keep it up, it informs people about the notorious group. Thankyou. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hugha (talk • contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for high-lighting the article, I plan to improve it. I've added WHY it's a significant product for aspiring filmmakers and videographers alike: The new camcorder is the first camcorder below $3,000 to offer full 1080 HD resolution with a three-chip sensor. Feel free to check back in a couple of days Krasimir 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat familiar with bundling AfD nominations, though I've never done it. After I discovered the category, however, I thought it would be a waste of space to list every single article therein, instead just citing the whole category. Shockingly, it's made up of over 200 articles. Soltak | Talk 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose you're right ... I guess what I'll do is wait for these three AfD's to end. If they're successful, I'll begin putting up the remaining articles in batches as you suggest. Thanks! Soltak | Talk 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it offensive and highly upsetting that you marked the above article for speedy deletion.

It was a work in progress by myself, hence the lack of information. The church is notable being as it was formed out of the oldest church in Motherwell. Part of the buildings date back to the 1700s and are listed by Historic Scotland.

You seem to have a vendeta against religious organisations and come across as an arrogant twat.

Tastyniall 18:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

You have advocated keeping the above article in the current AfD debate. However, you say that "it seems to have been - regrettably - established that all American high schools are notable". In point of fact, nothing of the sort has been established, though there is a small claque that would certainly like this to be the case. There are many people ( of whom I am one ) who do not hold this view, but believe that normal notability criteria should apply to schools as to any other subject. If this is what you also believe, perhaps you may wish to review your contribution to the debate.

Sincerely,

WMMartin 13:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianyoumans. How do you feel about school districts? I would like to start some kind of discussion about how to establish their notability. As a reference, here's a recent debate with various arguments, in case this is a subject you might wish to investigate. Best regards, Icemuon 20:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I share your taste in deleting the great majority of primary school articles that can not be made notable, & the majority of middle school ones that are & so on--but I suggest it will be more palatable in small well-homogenized portions. DGG 06:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the edits you have done to this page, however are you sure that "the forest of boland light railway" is a continuation of "The Little Grey Men" story line, I believe it is a completely separate story line with it's sequel being "the wizard of boland" Ecurb12 10:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've deprodded it (after thinking twice). I've left a comment on the article's talk page, but I'm still open-minded! :) Mereda 11:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, improvements are going to be made on the entry. If you think it's still prime for your sharp judgment, then ax it! G.dw.n 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your recommendations for deletion on Belmont Ridge Middle School's deletion recommendation page. Thanks. 20176 02:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brianyoumans, today about a dozen stub articles for middle schools in Loudoun County, Virginia, were Multiple AfDed. Apparently, when that happens, if a contributor hasn't included the single target school (Belmont Ridge Middle School in this case) on his watchlist, then he is unaware of the AfD discussion until after the fact, even if some of the other schools grouped into the AfD are on his watchlist. Is this accurate? I reviewed my watchlist for 02/12 and nothing shows up (Belmont Ridge was not on my list, but some of the others were).

If so, then contributors with interests in those articles may be left out of the discussion. I don't necessarily disagree with the points made in the AfD, but I would have like to have weighed in on the issue. In fact, after looking at the discussion participants, there's not a single editor from the group of us that regularly work on Loudoun County articles. Is there another way to accomplish this so easily identifiable interested parties are not left out?

Also, redirecting the deleted articles back to the school system page can have advantages, but what if someone wants to re-initiate an article for one of those AfDed schools down the road? What would be the process?
Thanks,

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  04:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I initially filtered for only Talk pages on my watchlist and now I see that the AfD flag shows on the article page itself. I missed the original notification. My bad. So, thanks for the notification and the special note to 20176. My second question about article restart still stands, though.

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to restart anything in particular. However, given the number of schools in the LCPS family, there's always a chance something unusual may come up. Also, the geek in me wanted to know. Thanks,

—  Jim Dunning  talk  :  05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As requested--Doc^g 13:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Editor's Barnstar
		You may be unpopular in some circles, but I, for one, applaud you for what you are doing: keeping this encyclopedia, well, encyclopedic. Keep up the good work. Icemuon 13:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome :-) I can see you have (and will) suffer verbal assaults, and wanted to let you know you ARE indeed appreciated. Best regards, Icemuon 14:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WEll it looks like all those FCPS middle schools get to stay, even after the deletion review, which came across to me as though some of the admins were slightly perturbed at you. NOw I dont want to get into personal attacks here, but maybe there are better things you can do with your time on wikipedia, like adding articles and improving current ones instead of just deleting as many as you can. All the Middle school articles can be made better by adding references. If you don't want to do that, may I kindly suggest a wikibreak? KeepOnTruckin 16:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Carson MS was named a "School to Watch" in 2004, one out of only 7 in Virginia, and only 4 in 2004, and Luther Jackson was already discussed. The rest are pretty insignificant, so I can see why they should be deleted. Jordan 04:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am the creator of most of these articles, and I now agree that not just any middle schools should be included, due to non-notability. If I find anything notable for any of the other schools, I'll let you know. Jordan 23:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Please refrain from vandalizing this page"???

You must be kidding me! Saying that she's hot is hardly vandalism.

Moreover, that article is essentially a little Entertainment Weekly-style blurb in the first place. It's absolutely not encyclopedic, and since you're apparently Mr. Delete About Town, your time would be better spent marking it AFD.

Jesus! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.132.227 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hey Brianyoumans, there is quite the heated discussion going on over at Wikipedia talk:Schools. I thought it might be of interest to you. Best regards, Icemuon 14:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianyoumans, I just removed an AFD tag from Longfellow Middle School, but this may have been an error. I followed the link in the tag to the AFD discussion and saw that the result was 'keep' and removed it on that basis. However, after doing so I realised that the AFD discussion it linked to was actually for Liberty Middle School (Virginia). I was going to put it back and fix the link, but I notice there is not a discussion in progress for Liberty Middle School (Virginia).

I'm thinking, that if you intended to tag Liberty Middle School (Virginia), it is probably best just to do it again as something odd went on with the original tag. Of course I am no expert so it may have been perfectly OK and I have stuffed something up. If so please accept my apologies.

Cheers, AntiVan 06:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which tag (on the actual page) is appropriate for disputes on a policy? Thank you. I appreciate your time. I will watch your page :) Travb (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know, offhand. I'm afraid that I haven't really been a Wikipedia policy wonk. The "disputed" tag was obviously inappropriate, though. The answer may be that there isn't any such tag; there will always be someone who disagrees with a particular policy page; the question is, does a consensus of Wikipedians continue to support it? You could try running a poll by posting to various places and asking people to vote, but I suspect that you would find that most people support the idea of WP:NOTABILITY even if they may want to change it one way or another. Brianyoumans 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, I found the tag.

As I mentioned on the talk page, a poll on the disputetag seems a little overly bureaucratic, I did offer the tag as a comprise, personally changing the policy tag back to the guideline tag. I hope we can comprimise on this. It seems looking at the archive page, I don't really know how without involving third parties (which I really want to ultimatly avoid on this particular page), do you have any suggestions? Travb (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian,

You seem to be a very reasonable fellow. Please don’t escalate this to another level. I think we are making progress to bring this together.

The tag is innocuous and merely a symbol. Please let it go in the interest of cooling the tempers.

Thanks!

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 07:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the tag is far from innocuous, and is generally used in an attempt to "bring down" guidelines if a small minority does not like the existing consensus (to be fair, it has its good uses, but it is frequently abused as such). It should most definitely not be used if three or four people don't like a well-accepted guideline. >Radiant< 09:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the talk page, please do not quote existing consensus when there exists none. I don't want to sound like a broken record. Please stop.

I see absolutly no comprimise on the page, as Kevin says:

Please don’t escalate this to another level. I think we are making progress to bring this together.

Lets comprimise, okay?

Brianyoumans no wonder you like WP:N, you use it to delete a lot of other editors work. User:Brianyoumans#Pages_Deleted Travb (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you found me out. I guess I failed to hide my deletionist activities carefully enough. :-) Brianyoumans 21:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing :) Travb (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the present WP:N (or the proposed one) will do nicely to support my inclusionism. Depends on what end of the stick you grab. DGG 03:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Travb - I was responding to Kevin's statement that "the template is innocuous", because in my opinion it is not. I was not talking about WP:N, and have not said anything here about consensus (or lack thereof) for that page. >Radiant< 10:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a resident of Avonhead suburb in Christchurch New Zealand and I have been living in fear of the Westgrove Ogs for almost two years now. They definitely do exist and i feel very offended that you have deleted the page on The Westgrove Ogs as i feel it is improtant that this page stays active as the WGOs are a great threat to society in Christchurch. please do not interfere in things that you are unaware of the situations people are in. Any way WGO does exist.

• How about some references from local newspapers about the gang? Actually, I'm pretty convinced that you are just a bored New Zealand teenager who listens to rap music and fancies himself in a gang. Believe me, you don't want a real gang in your town - innocent people get shot, rivals get beaten up and killed, people are afraid to leave their houses... Be happy you live in New Zealand and can fantasize about "tough streets". Brianyoumans 17:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder, do you intend to keep the infirnal dictionary incomplete? i was posing a question somehat like this in the talk page associated with it and when i finished posting it (as the speedy deletion requests i do) the article was already gone, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_Infernal and refer yourself to http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/demon_deplancy.asp as well, then decide if the article deserved "speedy deletion" i will not repost imediatly as i am attempting to compile a number of other articles from hard copy to wikipedia but in the future perhaps try to be a little less efficent.--Tophatdan 06:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brianyoumans,

I felt kind of bad bringing up a point only tangentially related to the deletion discussion about that article on Saddam Hussein's human rights record. You point out that there have been other bad regimes in that part of the world, which is true, but I'm sure that Saddam stands out even there. Molly Ivins once wrote a column in which she had said more people had died in Iraq since the invasion than during Saddam's 24 years in power. Soon after, she apologized with another column. This was written in 2005, I think, and there have been more deaths since, and the Lancet has published (disputed) figures putting the death toll so far at 600,000 or so, but here's what Ivins said then about estimates of Saddam's death toll:

According to Human Rights Watch, Hussein killed several hundred thousand of his fellow citizens. The massacre of the Kurdish Barzani tribe in 1983 killed at least 8,000; the infamous gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja killed 5,000 in 1988; and seized documents from Iraqi security organizations show 182,000 were murdered during the Anfal ethnic cleansing campaign against Kurds, also in 1988. [...]

Saddam's regime left 271 mass graves, with more still being discovered. That figure alone was the source for my original mistaken estimate of 20,000. Saddam's widespread use of systematic torture, including rape, has been verified by the U.N. Committee on Human Rights and other human rights groups over the years. [...]

There have been estimates as high as 1 million civilians killed by Saddam, though most agree on the 300,000 to 400,000 range, [...]

You can read the whole column here (scroll down to "Crow Eaten Here"): [2]

I haven't checked, and I could be wrong, but I think 300,000 is more than the Assads ever killed in Syria. It may be below the Algerian deaths (but those came from two sides in a civil war) or fewer than the Moroccans killed (which would surprise me), but keep in mind it's a low estimate. I'd add on to that the deaths of soldiers (again, Ivins was talking about civilian deaths) from the Iran-Iraq war. On top of that, add on the cruelty of the torture so many went through in so many different ways — something not typical of all regimes. The list of states that killed that many civilians isn't very long. Noroton 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.. I know you got some heat for the vote tally you are keeping, but I think that it is pretty good and interesting actually. Even though I am sure that people are acting in good faith in the sense that they are voting in the way that they believe is right, it is pretty revealing since maybe it reveals the sub-concious thought process that we use without even realizing :) I don't know if you have ever followed debates on that part of the world, but even for the smallest of debates it is always pretty clear where the faultlines lie, if there ever is a "final decision" point (ie vote etc). Just goes to show that at the end of the day if enough people come together they can create their own truths based on the what they have learned as "basic notions" when they were small.. And there are those who don't want to "break ranks"!! Quite fascinating frankly... Cheers! Baristarim 08:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A morsel for your hungry maw. Where to start.... I'll leave to the expert. Johnbod 02:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it looked "genuine" to me, but certainly not notable, or acceptable. A few cans too many expect. Johnbod 13:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that. --Coredesat 04:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to weigh in at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15#List of songs containing covert references to real musicians, since you were involved in a previous discussion of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your merge suggestion ... no one had taken it up in six months. However, I don't know why you think the articles would need to be merged ... we have always kept an article about the mall and an article about a city (and the mall is in the Town of Newburgh, not the city, in any event) separate. Daniel Case 06:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All Canadian schools are notable. This is consistent with Wikipedia:WikiProject Education in Canada. Eclecticology 18:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no intention of transferring that back. I looked through the list of those who voted to delete the Matheson School, and I was unable to identify a single one as being Canadian. They haven't a clue about Canadian schools. Why should we accept the opinion of foreigners about what is or is not notable about Canadian schools.

Having articles on all schools in British Columbia would be a definite asset. Under BC law parents have the right to send their children to any school in the province. This is, of course, impractical in rural areas, but it is frequently done in urban areas. If parents can have the information readily available and share their experience it will help them to make better decisions about where to send their children, without having to depend on the shallow analyses of the Fraser Institute. British Columbia already has one of the most successful school systems, as evidenced on reports of the OECD. For us to have articles on each and every school can only further that situation.

Your reference to vandal magnets does not rise above the level of speculation. If developping these articles encourages parents in other jurisdiction to do the same that would be great. It would certainly help people moving to another city to know about the schools, and to choose a neighborhood that will meet their needs. I suggest that you back off from passion to deprecate the articles about BC schools. Eclecticology 06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of your claims about what Wikipedia is not are relevant. The articles are clearly not directory entries even if their current stubbish state may lead to such a premature conclusion. The information provided and to be provided is clearly relevant to the school under consideration, and thus not indiscriminate. Eclecticology 21:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a bit of a minor footnote to your comments about Canadian responses I should mention that we are currently in a long weekend in Canada. It's conceivable that that may have influenced the low response rate. Some people may not be back to their computers until Tuesday. Eclecticology 02:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. No article exists at Brigades of the New South Wales Rural Fire Service. I must have mistakenly assessed the article at New South Wales Rural Fire Service, where the former redirects to. I've deleted the talk page. Thanks for letting me know of that oversight. Cheers. -- Longhair\^talk 07:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While initially plausible looking the templates contain a lot of false information - none of the redlinks are actual films or TV shows. They have cobbled together something that looks plausible but doesn't stand up under closer examination - which is exactly what they did with all of their entries too (every edit has been reverted and every entry is up for speedy deletion). I say we clear the lot out so that if anyone wants such an entry they can start from a clean slate and not try and work around the misinformation and misdirection they have already added. Basically it all needs to come out - root and branch. (Emperor 01:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm afraid taking it all out is the only way to go. They have clearly tried to make things look plausible on a quick skim. Given their use of multiple sock puppets you can't rule out the possibility that anything left (like those red lins in the templates) could then be used to start false entries in the future and there would be an extra level of misdirection introduced as it would appear on casual inspection to be entries started that another editor had redlinked. It could get horribly messy and given the fact that some of the information is clearly hoaxed it makes sense to take it all out. Good quick work despite their best efforts to slow you down ;) (Emperor 01:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, I am contacting you because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, which resulted in the deletion of Francesco Dionigi. A new article has been created about the same person, Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro. I have nominated it for deletion, and you may wish to read the new article and comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro (2nd nomination). --Akhilleus (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Part of it was wrong anyway when I checked the source. He had the wrong city... futurebird 05:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there: I noticed that you decided to remove the "db-spam" tag I put on this article. I do make mistakes and am happy to learn how to do things better. I am puzzled, however, as to how one could possibly make a non-spam article about a single product, unless you want to got he route of all the research on how bad it is for you. I'd be grateful either for some concrete suggestions or the replacement of the tag. Thanks for your help. Bielle (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information on what a "prod" tag is and does. That's a useful thing to know. I am certainly not ready for AfD. That can be a nasty process, and I don't like arguing that much. I appreciated the follow-up. Bielle (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that deletion is an area of wiki expertise for you. I ran across the article for Idaho City High School and wondered if you would take a look at it and let me know your thoughts about the possibility of prodding. This is new area for me. Thanks. -Gwguffey (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate your time. -Gwguffey (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback on that. Thanks for being the catalyst. I had tinkered that article a bit a few weeks ago hoping that if I got it moving a little bit someone with a bigger interest in college baseball would pick it up and really develop it. ACC baseball overall has such a large following that I still hold out hope that the right set of eyeballs will run across it at some point. Best wishes. -Gwguffey (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh yeah, as for your thoughts about the yankees, I don't disagree. the yankees playing an exhibition game in and of itself would not be notable, but i think given the reason for the exhibition and the fact that they initiated making the trip, it stands up and should be included as part of an article about the stadium. -Gwguffey (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider this a prod candidate? Or possibly a merge in Miami Orange Bowl though it isn't cited? I'm continuing to try and get a feel for what is appropriate for deletion. -Gwguffey (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take another look at this AfD debate as it has been fleshed out a lot since your nomination and certainly satisfies a number of the WP:BAND criteria. Many hours have been wasted on this already which could have been spent on improving this resource (though it is understandable that you should have referred it in the first place and thanks to the AfD debate we now have some good resources for fleshing out the articles). Michaeljohnsfans (talk) 10:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21-Jan-2008: I wonder if you have any suggestions on the subject of merging asteroid articles. Nearly a year ago, on 11 February 2007, you had supported the AfD about "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of asteroids/120901–121000". After checking the wikilink counts, I have confirmed that the questionable 173,116 asteroids are, actually, wikilinked twice, because they are stored in 1,732 articles of 100-asteroids each, then transcluded to be wikilinked (again) into 174 articles of 1,000-asteroid lists. The total of list articles is: 1732+174 = 1906. Internally, the Wikipedia page-link databases contain entries for "What links here" and count every article, including those articles which transclude the contents of other articles or templates. As a result, even though asteroids 1001-2000, in ten 100-asteroid lists, generate only about 3,000 wikilinks to dates and discoverers, the repeated grouping as an overall article "List of asteroids/1001–2000" re-links those and generates another 3,000 wikilinks with that overall article. For all 173,116 asteroids, the total wikilinks are (approximately): 173,116 asteroids * 3 wikilinks * 2 sets of repetition = 1,038,696 (a million) wikilinks. I wonder if, as an alternative, those 1,732 articles (of 100-asteroid lists) should be merged as internal data (not transcluded) within the current 174 articles of 1,000-asteroid lists, reducing the total wikilinks by a half-million (~519,000). To ensure precision, the astronomy people would probably perform the merges. Anyway, do you have any suggestions about this topic? (Reply on this page and I will check back in a few days.) Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article and tagged it appropriately. Hopefully it won't be one of those stubs which sits unaddressed for centuries. I also know nothing of the notability of 800 year old rulers who only show up here with two sentences, but I'll leave that for others to work on as well. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say leave it and see what happens. - 

That is probabaly all what there is about these rulers. Some parts of history of the Maldives have been rather poorly documented. I will try and see if i can expand it.

CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Littlegreymen.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes unfortunately that was made nearly two years ago so can't remember how I came to that conclusion. If I had created it nowadays I would have referenced it. Do whatever you think is correct, if there is no castle named Mains then by all means remove it. Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick thankyou for that spelling fix to Dinkey Lakes Wilderness ! (with an E)

It was as obvious as the big German schnaz on my face! 

Again, Thanyou.

Sincerely, Marcia Wright (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm both surprised and amazed that you spend so much time being a Deletionist, perhaps get an actual hobby or spend more time with those kids of yours? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredio54 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]