User talk:Steel359/Archive 6

I just put Jen Taylor Voice of Princess Daisy

Her voice is Jen Taylor now and she has the same voice as Mario Party 3 to Mario Party 8. And she has Jen Taylor voice of Princess Daisy Mario Kart Double Dash and Mario Kart DS. And she has her Jen Taylor voice of Princess Daisy Mario Hoops on 3 and Mario Superstar baseball. 151.197.2.213 at verison 23.

Sorry for butting in here, Steel359, but I think this guy here is the guy who kept saying this stuff a week or two ago. Get it through your head; Daisy is voiced by Deanna Mustard!!! Jen Taylor voiced Daisy for Mario Party 3 (and possibly 4), and that's it. Hardcore gamer 48 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't give a monkey's toss who Daisy's voice actor was. -- Steel 15:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The R-Project

Okay, I have no problem with you submitting said article for deletion - I now realise that it did look like an advert! I'll probably stick to editing articles for the time being, before creating my own.

I did sign up for a Wikipedia account a while back, but have only recently begun to start using it - hence the reason why I'm a little unfamiliar with the 'submitting new articles' rules at the moment. Sorry about that!

RuthW 08:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well this is much nicer than most of the messages I get when I delete an article. Cool. -- Steel 12:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. By the way, am I now allowed to delete the message you left on my discussion area about said article?

RuthW 12:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. -- Steel 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I 'm going to apeall to your logic

Look at this. An entire paragraph with crucial information about Hrisi Avgi's disbandment is deleted, and it is replaced by a paragraph which is repeated again. I 'm not asking you to unprotect the article, but at least revert SandyDancer's edits. See also what I have written in Talk:Hrisi Avgi about the Imia march. Thanks Mitsos 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I was wondering why you blocked me without blocking User:Spylab? It was completely unfair. Mitsos 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert anything - see the protection policy. And I blocked you and not Spylab because you made several more reverts than he did. -- Steel 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mitsos

Hi. I'm acting as advocate for an editor who has been having issues with Mitsos. As part of the DR process, we have opened an RfC in order to get community input on behavior that several users feel is uncivil and biased. Seeing as how you have interacted with Mitsos in the past, we would appreciate any input you may have on the matter. Please visit the Request for Comment page and leave your thoughts. Thanks very much, →Bobby← 15:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Trader Monthly revision

Please let me know why the revision of Trader Monthly was deleted so I can fix the problem.

Thank you Sabadu 19:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why was the Dealmaker site I created deleted? In the rules it says inappropriate content must be included in the article. Is there inappropriate content?

Sabadu 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Dealmaker was launched very recently, so it is unlikely to be notable enough for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Also, your only contributions are to that and a related article, which suggests to me that you are only here to promote these magazines and the company. -- Steel 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Steel- I realize Wikipedia is supposed to be just that: a wiki encyclopedia. That is why I made an effort on Trader Monthly to state only facts and not anything that was a personal opinion, unlike the previous, now current, effort of Trader Monthly, which has a bitter personal characterization of an entire field of work.

As for the Dealmaker magazine, a magazine covered in the New York Times and Reuters with a circulation of 100,000 could, in my opinion, be considered notable. And again there were only facts in that article as well.

As long as the material is legitimate and appropriate, I do not think my bias should interfere with the publishing of my work. If material was published by people with absolutely no bias on the words they present, there would be nothing to read.

Please advise on how this can be rectified (more source information perhaps?).

Thank you, Sabadu 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have taken this to AfD [1] to see what the community thinks. -- Steel 21:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Greetings Steel359, thanks for the assist. Ordinarily I wouldn't be reverting the User:Air of reality edits but this user has been defiantly editing despite having been permanently blocked (independently mind you) on a number of accounts. I've decided to become a bit more proactive to discourage this user's involvement. (→Netscott) 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for disappearing half way through the mess. I should've kept an eye on AIV for a bit but real life got in the way. -- Steel 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rio Grand Deleted Why

Hello Steel359, I was working so much on my entry and you deleted it on vague circumstances not fully apparent due to incompletion. I was full using templates from previous artist already located on Wikipedia and they are fully functional here. I started out with a goal full of energy to list the band here knowing how much different contacts need their info. and to be shot down for unclear and unverifiable belief is something out of the norm. What exactly was wrong with the beginning of the entry and what was to be entered? This entry would be able to provide all and any information pertaining to the band which could be used by so many, how can that be wrong? Others who know more than me could fill in the blanks or add to the Wikipedia entry. If this entry was wrong then the ones currently listed on Wikipedia should all be deemed faulty and not to policy and should be removed imediately. Please let me know what to do and how to clear this up or get it back and correct any issues you saw, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank You for your Time. Rio Grand 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

There's no point restoring the old version because it was completely unencyclopedic. Nobody is stopping you from recreating it as long as you keep WP:NPOV in mind, remember that this is an encyclopedia not Rio Grand's promotional website and show that the band is notable. -- Steel 17:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very well, Thank you for your information and guidance. I am naturally a very descriptive writer and it may have translated as if I was their Manager or something of that nature. I will research the links you have provided and see what comes up, but I won't start again without fully understanding what happened here with my first attempt. Rio Grand 05:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Hrisi Avgi

Steel359 wrote:

Gurch, could you gain clarification from SandyDancer that these edits are uncontroversial and that deleting those "sourced sentences" was indeed an accident. Mitsos is on the opposite side to Sandy in an edit war. Cheers. -- Steel 16:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming it was since he replaced the paragraph with a reworded duplicate of the paragraph below, while leaving the paragraph below intact, hence duplicating it. in other words, it looks like he copied a paragraph and reworded it, but then when he went to paste it back into the article he pasted it over the wrong one. Both of them are trying to improve the article, at least from their point of view, so this duplication is almost certainly unintentional, so I'm willing to assume good faith and treat the removal as unintentional too – Gurch 09:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Admin coaching

Hi Steel359! I see on Wikipedia:Esperanza/Admin coaching/Status that you don't have a student right now. Is this correct? If so, would you like a student? I am trying to match people at Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/Admin coaching with coaches. If you'd like a student, I would place you with User:Wikizach. Please let me know. Thanks! --Fang Aili ^talk 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet. Please contact Wikizach to start coaching. Thanks for participating! --Fang Aili ^talk 17:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

So

So, since you are my 'coach' what do you help me with exactly? WikieZach| talk 00:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

EuroRevenue

Please let me know what changes I need to make to EuroRevenue so that it is undeleted. I can't imagine that it's the copy itself. It's light years from self-promotion. Is it the subject matter? Obviously, the company is adult-oriented, but there are no external hot links to anything but the company's main site and a couple of child protection site. Please let me know as soon as you can. I tried to be wholly in compliance.

The reason given is "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion: an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well. If a page has previously gone through deletion process and was not deleted, it should not be speedily deleted under this criterion."

My entry is certainly about a company, but it is wholly encyclopedic. Please explain what qualifies as the "inappropriate content as well" that warrants the deletion. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoss (talk • contribs)

Can you please tell me why my EuroRevenue entry did not qualify. I left a message here once, and I'm not finding a follow up to it (I'm not seeing it at all, actually) Please give me a clue. I don't get the logic behind your decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmoss (talk • contribs)

The bot removed [1] the original message before I could respond to it. Anyway, to answer your question, EuroRevenue was deleted under the criterion you quoted above. Wikipedia would rather you didn't create articles about your company. -- Steel 12:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not reading you. "Note that simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion..." You tell me what I need to do--pull the names of websites? Add a company history? Pull the link to EuroRevenue? I don't accept "Wikipedia would rather you didn't create articles about your company." Doesn't seem fair. What kind of changes do I need to make to be in compliance? Thanks for your time.

I went ahead and re-posted the article--under "eurorevenue" and per your question, "Has EuroRevenue been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? Are there sources for the content in the article other than the company's own website/publications? -- Steel 14:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)"...I added multiple links to live news sources. These kind be found throughout the article now, and there are additional stories in the News section at the bottom of the article. I also killed the direct link to the www.eurorevenue site. Please let me know if this works and if not, why not. thanks for all the help!

Evolve Partners

Hi, I'm fairly new to Wikipedia but I'm not sure why you deleted this article under the "blatant advertising" rubric. I don't work for that firm or have any financial connection to them or anything like that in any way. I wrote the article because I thought it was noteworthy that there's a firm with high-level government clearance started in the aftermath of the 911 attacks that's hiring U.S. military combat veterans to handle foreign policy and homeland security issues. You may not realize this living in the UK, but in the US during the past five years the need for transparency in its national security issues is greater than ever before, and when there's a private company run by ex-military types doing contracts with the Defense Department and Microsoft, among others, the public ought to have that information available to them.

Also, your comments on deleting the photos/logos seem arbitrary. One is a company logo, and yet you put "no source" (?). What do you mean by "replaceable" or "orphaned" fair use?

Thanks in advance...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidradical (talk • contribs)

This was a borderline case. CSD A7 actually fits it better than G11. A Google search [2] brings up relatively few results, the top ones being to the company's website itself. Google News brings up nothing [3]. Has the company been the subject of multiple, non-trivial works? Images were deleted as "No source" where there was no link to the place you got the image (here for the logo, for example). Wikipedia doesn't accept fair use pictures of living people where a free equivalent could be created (replaceable fair use), and "orphaned" basically means that the image wasn't being used in any articles. Incidentally I've just deleted File:Masters of Success cover.gif as orphaned fair use, apparently I missed it the first time round. -- Steel 13:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the quick response. But if, as you say, it was a "borderline case," then why are you using Speedy Deletion? That's supposed to be used only for obvious cases, such as "patent nonsense" or "pure vandalism". The policy itself even says that "simply having a company, product, group or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." (Emphasis in original.)

As for whether it is "notable," having a company handling multimillion-dollar DOD contracts with a company president who's on the WSJ best-seller list would seem to be the definition of "notable", and the lack of information on Google or elsewhere is exactly why a Wikipedia entry would seem necessary. I had planned to write a number of articles on these new companies doing national security work under the Patriot Act, but if they're simply going to be arbitrarily deleted by admins, then I'm not going to bother.

I'm also confused about the image policy that you're discussing--if the images are the publicity photos distributed by the company for the media, then this would seem to be exactly the "free equivalent" that you're talking about.

Best regards, KRad

I'm using speedy deletion because I think in practice the CSD criteria can be stretched a little for the good of the encyclopedia. This is an issue reasonable people can disagree on, and we could be here for days discussing it. The images were tagged as fair use, so they're copyrighted. No image is preferable to a copyrighted image. As for eVolve, the article needs sources. WP:CORP is the relevant page here. All I found after an, albeit brief, Google was listings in company directories. As long as the company has been the subject of multiple non-trivial works I'll restore it. -- Steel 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, as always

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page. A particularly odd case since I've never interacted with that user before... Best, Gwernol 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Skype is free

Skype is free for Linux, Mac and Windows. Calling is free too. Maybe you can try it out and see if it works? -- Fuzheado | Talk 11:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll look into it at some point. -- Steel 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking for deleted article

Hiya, I was looking for an article about the Cowley Club, a social centre in Brighton. Now I saw at the deletion log that you deleted in on the 19th of November. I was looking through the AfD pages to find some discussion on this but can't find anything. Just wondering if you could point me to some more info on why it was deleted. Cheers, WietsE 21:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article didn't explain how the club was notable or important. It appears to be a regular community centre of some sort, and not a very big one judging from the photo. -- Steel 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

I have a minor interest in Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, though approve heartily of the protection, having watched the rather challenging editing stance one of the protagonists took and tried to talk him out of it. I suspect each was close to a 3RR breach though the anonymous editor kept changing IP addresses every few minutes. The other was patient, but we had an edit war nonetheless. My curiosity is over the normal duration of such a protection. Or does it truly wait until the issue is settled on the talk page and someone asks for unprotection? Fiddle Faddle 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Protections generally last until the dispute is resolved (which can take a few weeks for larger disputes) or until one (or both) parties lose interest. I go back through my protection log every now and again to see if there's still active discussion, and unprotect if there isn't. Other admins go through WP:PP and unprotect old articles if they appear to be abandoned. -- Steel 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why Was Meltdown Deleted?

Hello, Steel59. I've tried creating entries for the comic book series "MELTDOWN" several times now, but you seem to keep deleting them. I'm not sure why, and would like your input as to how I can make this entry acceptable to you. The comic is one of the best-reviewed series of 2006, has covers by two very notable comic artists, and comes from a major publisher. In fact, the vast majority of the publisher's titles do have Wiki entries, despite some of those books being a bit more obscure than MELTDOWN. Again, I'd appreciate your input as to how we can make this entry acceptable so that it no longer gets deleted. Thanks - I appreciate your time and attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.154.58 (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The article didn't explain how it is notable. -- Steel 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'll re-enter it and revise accordingly.

Reverting warnings to YorAmy

Why in the world are you reverting warnings on a spammer's talk page? Is it a sock-puppet account? -- Zanimum 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Block Evasion

Hi Steel,

Please note that this particularly vicious vandal you blocked (24.94.125.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) is evading his block and editing as 24.94.122.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). --Strothra 17:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've issued a range block. I'd be grateful if you could revert the blocked user's edits. -- Steel 17:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct Protected

Please revert protected to correct version as Dionyseus and Skinny McGee have been adding false and unverifiable information regarding a non-member of this band to the article, and that is what the arbitration is all about now. The correct version is not disputed by either party. The dispute only contends with the added info about Angus and publisher credits about Linfaldia. As it stands, you have protected the disputed version, which was what Dionyseus intended, as he is part of the dispute. GuardianZ 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read [1] and [2]. -- Steel 20:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust

I didn't realize it was on the main page. Thank you for watchlisting it (and of course there are good edits--I'm working on it!) :-) Jeffpw 20:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

user:downwards

Hi there,

I noticed you blocked an anon IP today which I requested on Qatar, so thank you. I request your help with another editor, named downwards. I recently stumbled upon Category:African American basketball players and saw it was heavily undersorted. I began to delete its lower cat, namely Category:American basketball players. I requested help from another editor named user:Darwinek and he advised the user to stop recat my edits to better sort these people, but he has not responded to my or Darwinek's requests to stop doing it and has continued with it for several days. Frustrated, I am seeking help. Could you ban this user, though I understand it is harsh? I repeatedly showed him that the rules for cats are not to include an article in the 2 categories in question. Thank you--Thomas.macmillan 22:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably best off bringing this up at the incidents noticeboard. I'm not entirely sure what's going on and I'm a bit worn out at the moment to go wading through tonnes of edits. -- Steel 22:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I have reported it on the board.--Thomas.macmillan 22:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Kaczism

The protection violates the wiki-rules - have you read the rationale? 83.29.153.85 22:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I have. -- Steel 22:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

After discussion with SandyDancer I request the unprotection of Hrisi Avgi. The article has been protected for quite a long time. The edit war is not going to start again. Thanks Mitsos 14:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected. -- Steel 14:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Hungarian Jews

Hi Steel359,

I understand that the purpose of locking a page is to incite discussion on the changes before actually implementing the changes. But it appears that the user (admin at that) refuses to discuss the matter, as he has not bothered to reply on his talk page or on the talk page of the article why it is "Original research" to link to a source that says only one of a Bela's parents is Jewish. Can you provide maybe another opinion or look into the discussion. Runcorn is simply ignoring any discussion. 141.213.211.81 14:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Chinese people

I don't know why you blocked the Chinese people article from editing. This thing is supposed to be edited. As least, the talk page shouldn't be blocked. Ated 21:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Steel359 - A sockpuppet or IP check should probably be ran on User:Ated. If you are able to do so and would like to conduct it, it would really save me the hassle of filing a report. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well a CheckUser that was "apparently" run has confirmed Ated as a sockpuppet of Snle. I was hoping for a block of his/her IP as well, but that doesn't appear to have happened. -- Steel 10:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Page Protection of Hereditary Education Policy

Hi Steel,

I noticed that you recently fully protected the article Hereditary Education Policy. After thinking about this, I'm not sure that's the best course of action to be taken here. This article has two or three regular editors, all Indian and all apparently pushing various points of view. The existence of the article itself may even be POV, since there seems to be some debate as to whether what is discussed there happened at all.

I ran across the article while on RC Patrol and tagged it with cleanup, and got drawn into the mess there. In an attempt to get the article some attention from more NPOV and experienced editors, I made a post on the India-related articles noticeboard, since I know nothing about India and the article is in desperate need of attention.

My concern now is that by protecting the article, any experienced editors that might be drawn to the article by my post on the noticeboard would be unable to make constructive edits to the article, which just leaves the problem unsolved.

Perhaps a better solution would be to warn the two editors in question, rather than placing the big padlock on the entire article. If you take a look at the edit history, the edit warring isn't really that severe... only six or seven edits. Leaving the article unprotected wouldn't do a whole lot of harm, either... no matter who wins the "edit war", the article is still gonna be in dire need of improvement before it's worthy of inclusion into an encyclopedia. I may very well just nominate it for deletion before this is all over.

Anyway, thank you for your time. – Lantoka (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. Let's see what happens. -- Steel 10:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like things have settled down. Only one edit since you removed full protection, and no edit warring. I'll do a bit of research myself and give the article a cleanup when I get some time.

Also worth pointing out that the person who originally requested protection was in favor of semi-protecting it. If you examine edits to the article carefully, you'll see that many of the recent edits came from that user and many other recent edits came from a particular anon. Looking at it this way, it looks like that user was trying to block that specific anon from editing the article and push his own POV. Not very scrupulous on his part.

Anyway, thanks for all your help. – Lantoka (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Tica London

Hi Steel - you recently deleted a page entitled Tica London - you said it was blatant advertising of a company - there is however a query that we requested you answer before deleting our page. A company called Figleaves is on Wiki and we copied their template competley so as not to contravene the company guidelines given for adding company details. You deleted our page however and left theirs. I will abide by your final decision but cannot see the sense of some other company adding their details while we cannot. Either they are removed at the same time or our page should be re-considered. Do you have shares in Figleaves by any chance?! Thanks for your time and I look forward to your response. Emma

(copied from Special:Undelete/Talk:Tica London)

Please do not delete this page - we do think we have a valid reason for having an entry linked to bikinis and swimwear. The reason we added our page was that we found figleaves with an entry and they have as much right as us to be linked to these pages. I cannot fathom why our entry should be considered different to their - if you were to delete both I might understand but not just ours.

Well Figleaves appears to have won numerous awards related to its retailing. It is also an international company. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 18:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the Figleaves article is not blatant spam. For this article to stand a chance, it must be completely rewritten so that it has a non-neutral point of view and contains references to reliable sources, not to mention removing all uses of the words "we" and "our." -- Kicking222 19:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You might not have seen these responses before I deleted the pages. Simply put, Tica London was clearly written to promote the company, and doesn't appear to be notable, whereas the current revision of Figleaves is not self-promotional, and in addition, the company does appear to be noteworthy. -- Steel 21:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Emergence Article Dispute Resolved

We have resolved the dispute in the Emergence article with a new version at Talk:Emergence/NewVersion. I have posted the page for unprotection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_unprotection. Thanks for your help on this, everything is going great now. Fourdee 07:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Sneaky vandalism

I am not sure what to think about 66.215.28.84 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have treated some users like Vrrayman1991 (talk · contribs) who apparently are autistic, and think the ips that work at articles like MechAssault: Phantom War are from a single person with a similar condition. Currently, he seems to be blocked. I haven't seen really bad faithed contributions from this user, though (as far as I remember). -- ReyBrujo 02:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain your deletion of "Hungry Hamsters"

Could you please explain your deletion of "Hungry Hamsters" Thank you? Chrisgo 11:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Didn't assert notability. "Released in early 2007" was also a bit odd. -- Steel 12:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is Derek Smart protected?

I don't understand...the "edit warring" was being resolved, as far as I could tell. Steps have been taken on the talk page towards consensus. Also, as it stands now, there are several borderline libellous (and at the very least non-consensus) parts included in the version you opted to "protect". Kindly remove this unnecessary block. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Mael-Num 18:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No. -- Steel 12:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring: User: William Mauco/User:MariusM

You've blocked both of us in the past, and now we are at it again. Please see [Transnistria's edit history], 16:23 thru 17:55, and User_talk:MariusM#Banned_users. A large part of our disagreement boils down to an interpretation of 3RR and WP:BAN and I believe that you can help us both resolve this, please. - Mauco 18:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm on a Wikibreak of sorts at the moment, do try some of the steps in Dispute resolution. -- Steel 12:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration filed on Derek Smart

Hello,

A request for arbitration has been filed on the article Derek Smart, which you have been involved with in some manner. If you would like to contribute to the request, or subsequent case if accepted, please visit WP:RFAR. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Praise the good lord. -- Steel 12:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Derek Smart/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 23:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

talk dragon ball z

Do you really think a full protection is needed, semi should do jst fine. -Dasnedius 03:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It is semi-protected. -- Steel 13:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks

It started to go beyond funny. Agathoclea 18:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, tell me if they come back. -- Steel 18:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

back as 217.82.116.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - just posting to AN/I as you might be off-line. Agathoclea 14:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I was offline. Looks like it's been sorted now though. -- Steel 18:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the speedy delete of 208.54.95.129

Thanks for handling the speedy delete of 208.54.95.129. I'm not sure why the abuse page created it there or if it was something I did. --HardConcrete 18:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -- Steel 18:29, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

User Talk Archive 4

May I ask you to remove the [[Category:Computer and video game soundtracks]]-tag out of your user talk archive 4? Thanks in advance. Saxbryn 18:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Steel 23:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about this. I've not participated in an ArbCom before. - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither have I, really. Don't worry about it though. -- Steel 23:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_Philippine_High_School on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Infobox_Philippine_High_School. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. { PMGOMEZ } 02:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/208.54.95.129.

A few days ago you deleted an abuse report that ended up it with the wrong filepath. Since then, the actual report in the correct filepath has been deleted. The reason given is that this page was created by a banned user. Several of us have worked on the page. I don't know if it was created by a banned user, but my account User:HardConcrete has been blocked and the page has been deleted. The page is meant to fix the problem that there are many editors who edit from this IP and that they shouldn't all be confused with a banned user who also edits from this IP address. If you could undelete that page I would greatly appreciate it. I've long edited under this IP and its only in the last few months that problems have arisen. I created an account with the hopes that this would get me past those problems, but that's now been blocked. My hope is that we will get Admins to understand the significance of this IP address. Thanks in advance for your help. --208.54.95.129 20:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk to User:Kchase02, or something. -- Steel 20:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Brothers Past on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Brothers Past. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Milchama 22:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

seth and willie fred

Why was the Seth and Willie Fred page deleted? It is a real band and their page was deleted after I uploaded it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightning7smith (talk • contribs)

There was no indication that this band is notable enough for inclusion within an encyclopedia. -- Steel 22:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Time to unprotect 770 Eastern Parkway?

I think it's time to unprotect this article. Enough time has gone by and the vandals are gone. Shlomke 18:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's already been done. -- Steel 22:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy

Thanks for the protection Tag on the above. Your intervention is much appreciated. Yours truly,--Ludvikus 22:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do try. -- Steel 23:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit war is actually only between 2 & 2 - if all wars only involved so few individuals!!!

User:JJL is on my side - against the other 2.

Now I've expressed my latest views, quite extensively, on the appropriate Talk page(s). But as you know, some of us have a life outside of Wonderful Wikipedia. So I'd appreciate it if you not rush us by opening the cite prematurely - not until the other 2 express their views - homefully, clearly and concisely, so reasoned choices can be made.

And I do want to Celebrate New Years Eve & Day - not in front of my computer screne - rather, in the presence of the face(s) of some beautiful women - a prospect which is available to me.

Cheers, --Ludvikus 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Princess Daisy

Thanks for letting me know. I saw that when I was protecting the page, but I still wanted to unprotect the page to give some new editors another chance at editing the article. Nishkid64 23:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Mitsos

I am at my wits ends with this user, who as you know has been heavily engaged in editing Hrisi Avgi. If you look at the edit history of the article, he has made literally hundreds of edits. His style seems to be to make lots of small edits which together add bias to the article, flame anyone who resists him, and never let up. When he is blocked, he returns as soon as the block is over and more or less reverts to "his" last preferred version. I would respectfully say that in my opinion, bans on the user himself aren't going to work - he needs to be banned from editing this article otherwise he will gradually, over the course of time, turn it into propaganda for his personal beliefs. Perhaps if banned from editing this article, he would move on to edit something else on Wikipedia productively? It goes without saying, I hope, that if he was to be prevented from editing this article, I personally would be more than happy to step away from it. --SandyDancer 13:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to the incidents noticeboard, explain the situation to there and propose an article ban. Make sure to bring people's attention to Mitsos's block log, and that RfC from a few weeks ago. Try to use lots of diffs. -- Steel 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Will give the whole thing one more chance before doing so. Another user got involved and that has saved me pulling my hair out. --SandyDancer 18:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos has been edit warring again and has shown total disregard for WP:3RR. Relevant diffs:

1. Mitsos deletes any reference to a victim of assassination (Mallios) being a former torturer for a previous regime - diff.
2. SandyDancer finds reliable source (BBC News Online), and restores references to Mallios being a torturer - diff.
3. Mitsos reverts this to "accused of" wording - diff - first revert.
4. Michaelis Famelis restores - diff.
5. Mitsos reverts again to "accused of" wording - diff.
6. SandyDancer adds official source (Greek Embassy, LA Consulate website) and restores original wording with amends to reflect new, additional source - diff.
7. Mitsos reverts again - diff.
8. SandyDancer restores again - diff.
9. Mitsos reverts to essentially the same version a fourth time - diff.

I accept there may be a debate to be had on the talk page about sources - but Mitsos' starting position here was that he wanted factual information removed from the article - and when sources were presented, he adopted a new entrenched position in line with the Greek nationalist / neo-nazi agenda pushes constantly on Wikipedia. I accept you may not want to be involved in this - but without an admin watching this, all articles Mitsos edits will constantly be subject to a barrage of edits by him seeking to push his POV. --SandyDancer 23:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've sent this to WP:ANI (See [4]), just so I can't be accused of unfairly picking on Mitsos. I'm hope you have no objections. -- Steel 23:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - oops, in fact I think I should have gone straight to WP:ANI myself - I must be honest and say I wasn't aware of the system, sorry for dragging you in directly like that, and I am grateful you went to the trouble of posting it up there. --SandyDancer 01:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Mitsos has gotten himself a 72 hour block. -- Steel 19:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for semi-protection

of Alpha Kappa Alpha and Kappa Alpha Psi. Bearly541 01:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians born in the 1990s. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 23:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Please be consistent and also delete Category:Wikipedians born in the 1980s. None of that 'pedian-by-age categorization is particularly useful, but seeing a cat for 20-year-old users is just begging people to make one for 10-year-old users as well. >Radiant< 07:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If the rationale for deleting the 1990s category was "we shouldn't have these 'born in xxx' categories", then your point on consistency would have some relevance. I don't disagree that having an 80s cat encourages people to create a 90s cat, but that's not a reason to speedy it out of process. I'm honestly surprised you made that argument. -- Steel 17:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

China Prep speed-deleted

While I share your commitment to preserving the integrity of this community, by speed-deleting this article you contradict the site's promise of open dialog in producing relevant, high-quality content. As the poster, I should have the chance to respond to your specific concerns before you assume the role of judge, jury, and executioner. China Prep was founded as a response to China's rising importance in an increasingly global society--a society in which many westerners lack a true awareness of Asia's people, languages, and cultures. You may notice that China Prep's website is a dot org, not a dot com--a deliberate choice given its mission as an educator. I would appreciate some constructive words from you on how to change this entry to fulfill your definition of legitimacy. David 19:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Has China Prep been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? -- Steel 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The question you're asking is one having to do with Notability. That's a conversation I'm happy to have with you--a conversation that Wikipedia supports with well-defined processes. But you're ignoring my first point: This article simply does not meet the Criteria for speedy deletion, and by doing so you're acting in a way that is destructive to the community and antithetical to the site's mission. Please re-read that page and tell me what qualifies this article specifically for speedy deletion. The page also says that it is inconsiderate (even in the case when it's justified) to speedy delete an article without first contacting the author. At the very least, people often post articles in pieces, and the author may not yet have added qualifying information. This particular article was up for like 15-20 minutes. Do you understand?--David 23:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Gerald Ford

I would ask that if anyone requests to unprotect the Gerald Ford article, you would please leave the semi-protection in place at least for a few weeks after his final funeral. It has been protected and unprotected numerous times, and the vandals keep coming out of the woodwork. Thanks. Veracious Rey talk ↔ contribs 00:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Silent Operations

As I had clearly put on the talk of the page Silent Operations, the page was indeed not advertising, as it had been labeled, and yet you seemed to think so, and deleted it accordingly. May I ask why this was done to a page that was authentic, not an advertisement, and contained valuable content? Doesn't seem right... --FlyingIsFun1217 18:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I didn't delete it as advertising. 2) A game that's not even out yet and gets 624 Google hits is highly unlikely to meet the notability threshold. -- Steel 21:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

1) It's reason for being marked for speedy deletion is because it was advertising. 2) The game is not out, but a demo is, meaning that it technically has been, released. When searching google, I get 1,470,000 hits, and by saying that you used google to get its popularity is absurd. Its notability is that I and the developers of the game are the ones who edited the page! --FlyingIsFun1217 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Link me to where you get 1,470,000. You are, of course, Googling "Silent Operations", not just Silent Operations (quotation marks), right? Because otherwise you get lots of hits unrelated to the game. But I agree, Google hits have little to do with this. Multiple external sources have everything to do with this. Has anyone other than the developers ever published any writings on this game? -- Steel 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, I was searching without quotes. I never knew about using quotes for searching before (or if I did, I've forgotten), so thank you for teaching me that. Indeed the developers did publish information of the game; It was in the form of that Wikipedia article. I started the topic, notified the developers, and (if the page's changelog is still visible somewhere) you can see that the main person editing the article was Vpr, the head developer of the game. No other sources have published anything on the game as not too many people want to write articles on the little material they have released. As another demo is expected either within hours, or within days of now, it is very well possible that other articles will soon be written on it. --FlyingIsFun1217 23:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are no published works then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's fundamental policies. -- Steel 10:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work. Do not write articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if you can support them by reference to accepted work.

This is the only thing I found about it. If you are going to say that this would be new work, then still, that would be wrong. I could (and did) base the article off of forum posts at the games website. --FlyingIsFun1217 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Forum posts are not reliable sources. -- Steel 19:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

For this sort of purpose, forum posts by developers should be fine, since it is coming straight from the creators, and solely creator posts. --FlyingIsFun1217 19:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But that doesn't solve the problem of the lack of multiple external sources. -- Steel 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

First off, you said:

If there are no published works then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's fundamental policies.

From what I see at wikipedia's own citation page, you are not even required to have a source! And even if you were (I would like a link to a page about that), I did have multiple sources which were pending addition, only for me to have you delete the article.

Simply put, there is no point in arguing about a stupid thing like this. May I ask what would be needed before this article can be restarted without possibility of deletion? Thank you. --FlyingIsFun1217 19:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Multiple external non-trivial sources. As for this link, see WP:V. Please show me where WP:CITE says you don't need sources so it can be corrected. -- Steel 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Its not that WP:CITE says that you don't need any external sources, it's that it doesn't say that you need any. Small error on my part, as this is just a guideline.

Thank you for the help, I will collect information to add to the page when sources are available, and when the techdemo is out. --FlyingIsFun1217 19:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Golden Sun rewrites?

So I've been having a merry time editing the Golden Sun wiki for a while now, and I just saw a comment saying that the story section of one article needs to be shortened. It dawned on me that I should probably rewrite the articles so that they'll not be as stuffed with info and be more accessibe to casual readers of Wikipedia, because now there's a site that'll serve as much a comprehensive resource for the franchise as the rest of the actual fanbase would like. So I'm hoping I can get input from you as to how best to improve the five Golden Sun articles as they are; I can take out many images, shorten story synopses, crop character portraits to allow for a less crowded character list, redirect the Pysnergy article, etc. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 02:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I can whip up a to-do list if you want? (I'll just assume the answer is yes and get on it later) -- Steel 10:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, check out Talk:Golden Sun. It's not that good, IMO, but it's a starting point. I'll have a look at those other articles... some other time. -- Steel 15:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

N-Ball...Deleted

Would you please explain why you deleted the page for N-Ball. I asked for a little bit of time to improve the site and you deleted it right away. I don't mean to get angry, but I'm very offended that you deleted this page that i was really trying to make good before I even had a chance to do so. --Luv2playtenis 06:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Has N-Ball been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? -- Steel 12:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I just don't get it though. It's not like I'm advertising or anything. Sure, i may have put the cost of it, but i see that kind of stuff all the time. And as far as non-trivial, half the articles on wikipedia aren't trivial. Also, every other game has an article here, so why shouldn't this one. Because it's not that popular, or just because it's not your favorite. Don't you think that's a little biased. What can i do to make it an acceptable article, or are you just going to sit there vasting in the glory of the little power you have? --Luv2playtenis 17:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that "but that game has an article so this one should to" is not a valid reason to include this one. I repeat my original question: has N-Ball been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works? I.e. has anyone other than the creators ever written anything about this game? -- Steel 22:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

yes, they have, i just haven't had time to include them yet. hense me asking for more time. i have several reviews i can put in, and i'm not a creator of the game, i just thought it should have an article. if you had actually given me some time, you would have seen reviews and a source list --Luv2playtenis 02:32, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

hello? can you respond...i would really appreciate if you would at least explain in detail why you deleted the n-ball page, so i can explain in turn my rebuttles of the issue--Luv2playtenis 03:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm waiting for these sources. -- Steel 16:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

oh, you want me to post them here??? i get them to you in the next couple days, and i haven't furthered the article since the deletion --Luv2playtenis 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.download.com/N-Ball-Mac/3003-2275_4-10499271.html http://www.macobserver.com/columns/slackersguide/2006/20060310.shtml those are two sources of reviews --Luv2playtenis 05:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That macobserver one would qualify as a non-trivial source, download.com's one wouldn't. Do you have another? -- Steel 10:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

how about this: http://www.insidemacgames.com/reviews/view.php?ID=691 --68.5.49.77 01:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to recreate the article, though make sure anything you write is sourced. -- Steel 15:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Timothy Soar

I see that you speedied this article. It was created by a newbie whose talk page shows no sign of being warned of the speedy. On the contrary, you'll find there comments from me encouraging them to enhance the article. I think you could have handled this better. The newbie recreated the article, unfortunately posting talk page material in the article space and vice versa and I've swapped them around. --Dweller 20:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding on ANI

I recently submitted an IP as a vandal on ANI for 206.176.120.178. I note the report was removed as the vandal had not edited again since the last warning.

However, the vandal had already received a Final warning by Orphu of Io for vandalizing 1946 London Victory Parade shortly before I applied a second Final warning for vandalizing Devil. I think that may have caused some confusion, and I should not have applied a second Final warning to the page.

What would you recommend? Should I let this one go, or resubmit to ANI? -- Kesh 17:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Taking another looks at the page it turns out that the IP had stopped vandalising long before Orphu gave his warning. He hasn't vandalised for almost two hours, so there's no real reason to block now. -- Steel 17:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. Thank you for looking into it! I guess I jumped the gun there. -- Kesh 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Miles Osland?

Hi, just curious what happened here -- I knew Miles back in high school and wondered if there was a Wikipedia page for him, so I looked him up today -- and learned a new wikiword ("Salting") :-/. Is there a back story worth sharing?--NapoliRoma 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a particularly interesting story. A user (incidentally, named "Miles Osland") created that article with self promotional material, very similar to what's on this page. I deleted it a couple of times and eventually salted it. -- Steel 23:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, got it; thanks for the explanation.--NapoliRoma 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

FTC Networks | Deleted?

Hello, I am very confused by the fact that the FTC Networks wiki has been deleted. I have placed the hangon tag on my page, so I had more time inproving my page and make it comply with everything it had to comply with. The speedy deletion tag was removed by another user, instead of me. And this user (TechnicalExellence) was willing to fix the page. It is unlikely to think that a person can work on a wiki in the middle of the night, and so I had to sleep. I also want to say that I am unhappy about the fact that no administrator could actually tell me what was wrong with my page. I requested this. Is there a way that my page can be restored and corrected, so that it will comply with everything? Because this is not the way it is supposed to be. --Mick Harmeling 15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep promising sources, now is the time to procure them. Our notability guidelines require that FTC has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works independant of itself. -- Steel 17:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Helena (High LEvel Petri Net Analyzer) Deleted

I just would like to know why my page (Helena a High LEvel Net Analyzer) has been deleted. This page presents a new free model checker for the verification of state properties for high level colored Petri nets, just like pages for the SPIN model checker, the Rabbit Model Checker, etc... Christophe.Pajault 17:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you provide multiple non-trivial sources to show that this Helena thing warrants an entry in the encyclopedia? -- Steel 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A lot of papers concerning Helena (or its features) have been published in several international conferences. The main ones are:

1. High Level Petri Nets Analysis with Helena. Sami Evangelista. 2005. in Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, pages 455-464. Springer-Verlag.
2. On the Computation of Stubborn Sets of Colored Petri Nets. Sami Evangelista and Jean-François Pradat-Peyre. 2006. in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Application and Theory of Petri Nets, pages 146-165. Springer-Verlag.
3. Syntactical Colored Petri Nets Reductions. Sami Evangelista and Serge Haddad and Jean-François Pradat-Peyre. 2005. in Proccedings of the Third International Symposium on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, pages 202-216. Springer-Verlag.
4. Memory Efficient State Space Storage in Explicit Software Model Checking. Sami Evangelista and Jean-François Pradat-Peyre. 2005. in Proceedings of the 12th International SPIN Workshop on Model Checking of Software, pages 43-57. Springer-Verlag.
5. New Coloured Reductions for Software Validation. Sami Evangelista and Serge Haddad and Jean-François Pradat-Peyre. 2004. in Proccedings of the 7th International workshop on discrete event systems, pages 355-360.
6. An Efficient Algorithm for the Enabling Test of Colored Petri Nets. Sami Evangelista and Jean-François Pradat-Peyre. 2004. in Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop and Tutorial on Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets and the CPN Tools, pages 137-156. University of AArhus, Denmark.

Christophe.Pajault 09:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Not being able to verify those myself I'm going to have to trust that they're non-trivial. Feel free to recreate the article, though keep the technical jargon and external links to a minimum. -- Steel 13:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I removed some external links.Christophe.Pajault 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

MaxiVista

Hey, why have you deleted my article about Maxivista? It was completely written from scratch. Please advise. Thanks.89.50.227.217 01:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MaxiVista. -- Steel 12:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Virual Iron

Why do you keep deleting my Virtual Iron page? Vanpedia 13:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Demonstrate how it meets WP:N and I'll restore it. -- Steel 16:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

They are very well known within the industry with multiple mentions in publications such as Information Week, Network World, CIO, InfoWorld and other similar publications. A quick search shows plenty of coverage by web sites such as ServerWatch, TechTarget, Intel, CNet, The Register, ComputerWorld, eWeek and others. They also won the best of LinuxWorld award in 2005 This should clearly cover the primary notability criteria discussed in the guideline. Vanpedia 17:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmm. Ok. But make sure you cite sources for the information you put in the article. -- Steel 14:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring. Vanpedia 18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Basque pelota at the Summer Olympics

Hi, noticed you deleted Basque pelota at the Summer Olympics as CSD A1. Would you mind dropping a line on my talk page with the former contents of that page? I'm likely going to make it a redirect to Basque pelota at the 1900 Summer Olympics since that was the only year it was a medal sport, but it was held as a demonstration a couple more times so I would like to see if there's anything I can salvage there. Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 01:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

There wasn't really a whole lot there. I've userfied the contents to User:Steel359/Sandbox2. -- Steel 14:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty useless. Thanks. Just going to go make that redirect now. -- Jonel | Speak 17:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian Embassy

Hello, I notice that you swift deleted the Christian Embassy entry. I know it wasn't voluminous yet, but I wanted to save my changes for lunch before I added the rest. Was there some problem with the content? I didn't find an articles for deletion entry. - KellyLogan 18:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have been a bit hasty with that deletion. The article has been restored. -- Steel 23:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. At least that got my first article deletion out of the way with a minimum of pain.  :^) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KellyLogan (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

My Article

Why have you deleted my article "Where Nicktoons Live In Peace"? It is for my friend (we share wiki accounts) and was not finish. There is more to be added and lots to do. It may have been neutral for awhile, but we were awaiting different approvals and were working on the site itself. Please restore it so we may use it! Thank you dearly. dphantom15 17:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what page you're talking about. There is nothing in the deletion log for Where Nicktoons Live In Peace [5]. -- Steel 23:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it is "The Place Nicktoons Live In Peace" dphantom15 19:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a run-of-the-mill forum which hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy. -- Steel 00:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

But this is a wonderful, kid-friendly place. I am not one to argue with the boss, but is there anything to do to get it back for my friend? dphantom15 19:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Get it back as in, just the text, or get the article reinstated? -- Steel 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Get the article reinstated. I absolutely know my friend wants it back, for they have been building up and up and finally thought it was enough to have its own article. They have worked hard on it and wants all to know of the hard work put into it. dphantom15 19:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I can only apologise for having deleted your hard work. I'm afraid the website hasn't at present done anything to warrant inclusion within the encyclopedia. -- Steel 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is kind of confusing, but could you give me an example and/or idea of what it will take for them to create an official article on their forum? I know there must be something that stands out, but is there anything else specific We can do to it or dphantom15 20:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)anything? Please help me here. PS: May I have the text from the deletd article back please? dphantom15 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the text from the article to User:Steel359/Sandbox2. The kind of forums which have articles are Something Awful, DataLounge and ForumPlanet (to take three examples). Anything hosted on Invision is likely not to meet our notability guidelines. -- Steel 01:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. HOw will I know when my friend has a suitable topic and/or forum? It may be invisionfree by the way, but it is good as anything as you can imagine. (Again, I am not arguing because that makes things worse) Is there any way for someone to come and "Inspect" said forum to search for aa suitable-ness? dphantom15 20:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Whenever you have multiple non-trivial published works on the forum. -- Steel 01:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I know this is a bug, but could you explain for me? dphantom15 20:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In short, has anyone ,other than those associated with it, ever written anything substantial about this forum? -- Steel 01:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I thank you greatly for your wisdom and advice. By the way, this is kind of a weird question, but people keep telling me the admins here are bots. Are you a bot? -dphantom15 20:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Steel359|program = run (admin);

Steel359.edit("now");

Steel359.Response;

No record or memory of word 'bot' in hard drive. Please rephrase question;

Steel359.edit("end");

Is that an obvious "YES"? dphantom15 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

nball

i just want to thank you very much for agreeing to let me reinstate the article, but do you happen to have it archived anywhere? it would be nice if i didn't have to redo it (i would still add the sources!) again, thanks! --Luv2playtenis 05:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the article was full of unencyclopedic material (Eg, "Controls" and that list of campaigns), which really would be best left out of the article, so I've just userfied the best bits. See User:Steel359/Sandbox2. -- Steel 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy still

Dear Man of Steel 359 (I hope I got you gender right in my presumption),

We're still at war.

I have a policy problem - User:Lucaas does not sign/date his comments.

I know it is WP policy. It is helpful to know WHEN someone made a comment.

I find it very strange that his comments are not signed.

I've asked him to do it (sign) - but it does not register.

Can you please - informally - intervene? --Ludvikus 14:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you've just left him a message about it. -- Steel 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Admins

Seriously though, are admins on Wikipedia bots? Answer greatly appreciated! Dphantom15 17:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No... -- Steel 17:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! You are on a lot though!Dphantom15 17:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

ECourier on deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ecourier. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Jaybregman 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC) We have a big problem. I just checked and this article is deleted. You deleted it because of "Blatant Advertising". The former page is at:[6] Current as of march 2006. I respectfully submit that summarily deleting this article, which had been previously reviewed other admins, was innappropriate. We maintain this page to provide information about our company--all the information is factually accurate. Note that "simply having a company, product, group, or service as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion". I would be very interested if you could elaborate on why you felt the article met the standard for "blatant advertising" and why you chose a speedy delete as a remedy. There were other avenues you could have taken if you felt the page was "blatant advertising" such as posting on the discussion page if you believed edits needed to be made. I hope you agree avenue would have been in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. I request you restore this page immediately and frankly, I believe we are owed an apology for your conduct, which borders on abusive. I would appreciate a very prompt response. jaybregmanJaybregman 01:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

hi

I lolled at the bot comment above by the way.

If you haven't checked in on the Smart arbcom in some time you might be interested in checking in again, it's evolved quite a bit, and some of the proposals have been voted on and passed on the proposed decision page (though I don't think it is near closing yet). ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've been keeping a close eye on it (well, except the Workshop talk page, that's just a mess). I just haven't felt the need to comment on anything for a while. -- Steel 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I figured, but I noticed that Kerr Avon had just commented for the first time, so I wondered if other parties had forgotten about it or something. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

On speedy deletion of Middlegroundx

We were in the middle of editing when the article was deleted. Now, we found it unfair when we were attempting to comply to the rules of Wikipedia. Is there any way to retrieve the information lost? Kind Regards, the Middlegroundx team.

Wikipedia is not for "raising [the] awareness"^[1] of things. -- Steel 17:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, we were in the middle of editing. Everything was being rehashed. Please tell me why an engadget blog article can exist but a middlegroundx blog article can't? Kind Regards, the Middlegroundx team. Soju kr 17:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Because Engaget is notable. -- Steel 17:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Then how do we make ourselves notable? Soju kr 17:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Become more well known. -- Steel 17:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Cascadeprotectedwarning

Hello! I originally had precisely this wording in mind, but it seemed to me that placing the reference to cascading protection at the beginning of the sentence would better differentiate the message from MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning. It also enabled the insertion of a comma (which I believe improved the flow). —David Levy 22:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the two messages look similar, but I think (as do you, by the sounds of it) the current wording is preferable to the previous wording. Perhaps we could change the colour of the cascading message? -- Steel 22:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That occurred to me, but I'm concerned that this might make it appear less important/noticeable than MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning.

Syntactically, I prefer my wording; I believe that breaking up the sentence with a comma makes it seem more natural.

Perhaps we could devise a new setup for both messages (e.g. different wording or a different visual style) that would enable clearer differentiation without trying to retrofit the new information into the old format. —David Levy 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If flow is an issue, it can be achieved simply by splitting the sentence into two. I can't see how awkwardly beginning a sentence with 'because' is natural, even if it allows the use of a comma. I am, however, open to suggestions if you want to revise both messages. -- Steel 00:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Constitution Society deletion review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Constitution Society. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Roland (talk • contribs) 00:24, 19 January 2007