User talk:TexasAndroid/Archive5

If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Archives	2005 First half, 2006 Second half, 2006 First half, 2007 July - Aug, 2007 Sep - Dec, 2007 Jan - May, 2008 May - Dec, 2008 Jan - May, 2009 June - Dec, 2009 Jan - June, 2010 July 2010 - Dec 2011 First half, 2012 Second half, 2012 2013 2014 Current

Off The Chart Radio

Hello, A couple of months ago you deleted the Off The Chart Radio page and protected it from re-creation. Interest has been expressed from the manager of the station for the page to be properly recreated and regulary updated by staff at the station other than listeners. If you would be so kind as to unblock the recreation block and give the manager some time to reorganise the page I would be grateful. If you wish to contact the station manager via email: tim@offthechartradio.co.uk

Many thanks, Leigh Leighlast 20:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit by station manager: We would like this page reinstated as it provides good information for people for our station, this page will be edited by station representatives wherever possible. Thanks

Tim Willett 20:45, 30 June 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.189.110.141 (talk • contribs)

The page was properly deleted by WP:AFD here. It was blocked from recreation because it was repeatedly recreated improperly. At this point, the proper way to get the article unblocked is to get the original AFD overturned at WP:DRV. And to do that, you are going to need to show that the problems raised at the article's AFD have been dealt with. Basically, you need to show 1) why your project is notable. WP:WEB and WP:MUSIC show notability requirements. Multiple, independant, reliable sources about the subject is generally a good start. You also have the hurdle of WP:SPAM. An article created by the station personnel, about the station, is going to have a very hard time being viewed as anything but SPAM. Good luck. - TexasAndroid 14:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

deletion of JFIIT

Joint Fires Integration and Interoperability Team (JFIIT) page was deleted under a citation of copyright infringement. Information was taken from the JFIIT website and from USJFCOM's website (which JFIIT is a sub-organization of USJFCOM). To right the problem and re-insert a JFIIT page into wikipedia, need we just add source citation or are there other steps. We have researched the information on Wikipedia about the deletion process and all we've come across is that due to our own error, we failed to cite sources. If we were to re-instate the page with source cited, would that fix the error and keep the page up on Wikipedia?

Thanks, JFIIT team —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFIITweb (talk • contribs)

Please check out WP:COPY and Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ. Basically, if you own the right to the material, then you have the right to post the material to Wikipedia. Do be aware that to do so, you must release the material under the WP:GFDL. This has a lot of effects, but in general it means that you are allowing anyone else to use this material, as long as they follow the rules of the GFDL. Anyone, not just Wikipedia. Part of the premise of WIkipedia is that material here is freely availible for others to use for any reason. That's why, for instance, we cannot accept permission to use material for "Non-commercial purposes only". Wikipedia may be non-commercial, but all material on it must be able to be used by others, even for commercial purposes. You need to be aware that this is what you are doing with your text when you place it on our site. If you decide that you do still want to post your material on the project under the GFDL, then you need to follow some steps to get it officially recognized as legitimate under the GFDL. I'll cut&paste from one of the warning templates:

---

• If you hold the copyright to this text and permit its use under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License:

Explain this on this article's discussion page, then either display a notice to this effect at the site of original publication or send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en at wikimedia dot org or a postal letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. These messages must explicitly permit use under the GFDL.

Note: Articles on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view and must be verifiable in published third-party sources; copyright issues aside, your text may not be appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia.

---

TexasAndroid 14:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the information gleaned concerning the above link, I am assuming that if we cite the JFCOM and JFIIT websites, as well as perhaps other military sites that host our information, we will have the necessary reliability factor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFIITweb (talk • contribs)

The notability issue is separate from the copyright issue I already responded to you about. Notability documentation can be found at WP:NOTE. WP:RS is also important here. In general, it says that you need to show that your organization has been detailed in reliable', independent, 3rd party sources. Read the links, please. One more of importance here is WP:COI, conflict of interest. That describes why, while not prohibited, it is generally a Very Bad Thing for the subjects of articles to be writing their own articles. It very, very often ends badly. - TexasAndroid 14:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

JFIIT - we're a subcommand of USJFCOM - a government Department of Defense agency

Sir, our tax dollars are used to find solutions to prevent friendly fire. We are the creator of the content on the https://jfiit.eglin.af.mil pages. What steps do we need to take to prevent deletion again? or how do we get a GFDL-compatible license as a subcommand? One of the deletions mentioned that we are irrelevant. ?? How do get verified by 3rd party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornwelr (talk • contribs)

TexasAndroid,
Thank you for the quick response and explanations. My coworker (JFIITweb) and I have much to read, review, and understand.
Cornwelr 129.61.46.60 18:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Vandal

Texasandroid: I am not using this account to evade my existing block. I am only using it for communicating with you because I am blocked on my other account. I was willing and still am willing to stop the vandalizing. I have gained an appreciation for this project and would like to contribute positively. All I want is a clean slate, and I will not touch the Lucille Ball article again. I noticed that you mentioned the deal that we had before; however if you look at it, you will notice that you are the one who stopped responding. That is why I never fulfilled my part, not because I am dishnonest as you told the other admins. Let me know: you said that all your care about is if I stop vandalizing and if you wipe the slate clean, I will. Renatob1977 04:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I do not want to simply create a new account. I WILL wait out my current block because I did vandalize and thus dserved it. However, in return, I want all of those sockpuppet tags removed as well as the page to ban me. If you do that, I will have no reason to vandalize again. I will use one account and only one account and I will only edit constructively. You really have nothing to lose; if I do not fulfill my promise to stop vandalizing, just reblock me. Renatab1977 22:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I will consult with others. This is not a decision I can make myself. Do realize, that if you keep one of your existing accounts to edit with, you can never truly have a clean slate, as the traces will remain in page histories, and in people's memories. Even if you were to start editing perfectly well, many editors will know that you are this vandal. <Shrug> - TexasAndroid 03:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, perhaps you are right. I will create a new account to edit appropriately going foward. I do however want all of those sockpuppet tags delted. I will not use those accounts anymore, so feel free to delete the user pages and discussion pages. I would also like that whole ridiculous banning thing stopped. I did vandalize, many, times and I was wrong to do so; however, the subject of banning never should have been brought up as users who have committed far worse vandalism have not been banned. Renatab1977 03:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

First, there are major distrust issues here. You have promised to stop before, and not done so. So I'm not particularly inclined to accept any promises from you right off the bat. You will need to build up a level of trust first. So second, any option of clearing out the sock-puppet tags will need to be an end-goal, not a starting point. If the vandalism stops, and stays stopped for a period of time (months, not days or weeks), then it will be quite possible to clear out the tags, as they will no longer be meaningful. I would suggest you keep this current account open as a communication channel. It's known to be you, and can be used four to six months from now to again ask for the clearing out of the tags. Assuming that the vandalism had indeed stopped during that time, it may very well be doable.

I cannot stop the banning thing, though I really expect it'll go nowhere. Your situation just really does not fit in with the purpose of those bans. We can watch that and see.

But the #1 thing needed from you is to simply stop the vandalism. If you continue to do it, you make it fairly obvious that your offer to reform is meaningless. You have the power to stop at any point. You have the ability to create a new account and edit without the vandalism, and we would not know what that account is. So you have the ability to start over with a clean slate at any point you choose. You just need to stop with the vandalisms. - TexasAndroid 14:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I am going to do. So, you do agree that that banning proposal was inappropriate? Renatab1977 03:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would not use the word "Inappropriate". It was done in good faith by a user fed up with your constant vandalisms and disruptions. "Ineffective" might be a better word. Unlike many other bans, a ban on you would be mostly a symbolic one, with no real substance to it. - TexasAndroid 12:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

This user is still using sockpuppets. Please see User:Botrag. I still think the user should be blocked indef. b/c of the word, bot. Miranda 12:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If he can actually go 4-6 months without vandalizing, then we shall see. Personally, I'm highly doubtful at this point. Even as he claims to be trying to reform, he cannot resist tweaking the noses of those he has been disrupting. Not a good sign in the slightest. - TexasAndroid 15:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I created a new account because you blocked out my Renatab account, and I need to communicate with you. I am not evading my block, but I have the right to communicate with the people blocking me. Why did you block that account? I stopped vandalizing just like we talked about. I am not User:Botrag, whether you believe it or not. If you want to back out if the deal, let me know. Otherwise, stop accusing me of things that I am not doing. If I wanted to vandalize the Lucille Ball page, I would have, but I did not because I thought we had an agreement. Treesarmy 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The Renatab1977 account is not blocked. And in this edit the Botraq account admits that it's your account. I'm not backing out of any deal. I'm just skeptical that the promises will be kept. We shall see. - TexasAndroid 04:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, so just because someone says that they are someone else, that means that it is true? That is a little naive, wouldn't you agree? If I was that person, what would be the point of my giving 2 conflicting stories? Also, I would like the sock puppet tag removed from this account. The vandalism has stopped, so there is no reason for it to be there. Thank you. Renatab1977 00:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. Miranda 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If this whole reform thing is false, I can think of reasons you would tell conflicting stories. But I agree, it is quite possible that you may get copycats. And at this point, there is little way to know that they are not you. And I'm really not sure what you could do to prevent it if someone is copycatting you. Your long-term vandalism has set up the situation. <shrug>. We really have two situations here. You say you want to go clean. If that is so, then for that goal at least any copycats are irrelevant. They should not in any way effect your ability to edit afresh with a brand new account. As for eventually getting the Lulu sock-puppet tags all removed, I'm afraid that a determined, long-term copycat could totally derail that goal. Since we have no way of knowing that it's not you, and you have a track record for lieing about new socks, and at least one previous broken promise to reform, I'm afraid that we don't have much choice but to assume that it is you if the vandalism continues. OTOH, I suspect that if you do really reform, with a totally new and unrelated user name, then 6 months from now the old tags may be a non issue. If you truly become a good editor, there will be nothing to tie you in the new ID back to the old tags, and so I suspect there may be no point in even returning to the issue. In the end though, time will tell. - TexasAndroid 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Yogurt_Connection

Has the matter been resolved?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

I noticed that you blocked User:72.43.149.190 on the June 1. This editor has a long history of being warned and blocked. I did not check his recent edit history, but I did revert his recent edit to Shunning. It is nothing egregious, but more stupid and being a pain; however, This individual might be better served with a longer term block because warnings and shorter blocks have no affect. Cheers. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin

Dear, TexasAndroid im removing one tab from you it is th administrator one please do not put one if youre not--Physik 21:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Please don't do that. Kuru ^talk 22:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

King Edward Medical University (KEMU) → King Edward Medical University

I actually requested a move from its existing title to a new one. Therefore i made it blank.

Adding long comments to copyvio articles

I noticed you added a long comment to Downtown Singapore, and article I submitted to WP:CP the other day. In the future is this something I should do myself? Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Southwest Local School Dist.

I don't know why you deleted this!? Not to be rude, but you had no business doing so. I was planning on adding to it! I just hadn't had time yet. I'm going to re-create it. I'd appreciate it if you'd leave it alone and let me finish my work!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuckeyeDave (talk • contribs)

Group Representation Constituency

You deleted Group Representation Constituency on a PROD earlier this year. I want to create it as a redirect to Constituencies of Singapore. As a redlink, it has almost 2 dozen incoming links. If you didn't PROD it, please let me know who did and I'll get their input. If you did PROD it, is this change OK with you? davidwr (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. - TexasAndroid 13:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with article about (Kirk Fraser)

Im sending you a request. I've look over the deletion of Kirk Fraser, The original article had the incorrect spelling of his last name. Check out the (http://www.answers.com/topic/kirk-frasier) the article is still wrong. We originally created a new page on Wikipedia with the correct spelling and paste the content from Wikipedia with the incorrect spelling of Frasier. It was shortly deleted, we once again created it again, and it was also deleted. We don't know what to do. It seems like once it's up it taken down again, when it was originally put up by some one else. We just wanted to change the spelling of the Last name and fix the content that was wrong. Can you please help me in guiding me to correct this issue. Thanks.

Robert Cecil Martin

Just wanted to point out, if you hadn't noticed back when you prodded him, that he's linked from at least one Cite book regression test, along with a few other articles that cite his books. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 19:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

So... are you then protesting the PROD deletion? - TexasAndroid 19:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. What did it say before it got prodded? I don't know anything about him short of what I found in those tests...--SarekOfVulcan 20:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It basically was the following, plus a couple of See Alsos, a Bibliography, and a couple of external links, none of which are particularly independant of the subject. IMHO notability is questionable, and the sourcing is worthless. But that said, as a PROD deletion, all it takes is one protest to get it undeleted. - TexasAndroid 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Known colloquially as "Uncle Bob", Robert Cecil Martin has been a software professional since 1970 and an international software consultant since 1990.

He is founder and president of Object Mentor Inc., a team of consultants who mentor their clients in C++, Java, OOP, Patterns, UML, Agile Methodologies, and Extreme Programming.

From 1996 to 1999 he was the editor-in-chief of the C++ Report. In 2002 he wrote the Agile Software Development: Principles, Patterns, and Practices which gives pragmatic advice on object oriented design and development in an agile team. He has also published a truckload of articles on programming and software methodologies.

---

Ok, then restore it, and I should be able to at least fix the sourcing, given what I just looked up about him. --SarekOfVulcan 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

It's back - TexasAndroid 20:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 20:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned it up a bit: I'll see what else I can fix in the near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

Llama semi-protect

Thank you! The Llama page has received some nice edits from anon-IPs. But, for the most part, the anon-IPs have been very disruptive. Thank you for protecting the page. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 15:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

HP7 3RR

Texas, thank you for informing me. I have a question, though - does the last revert count? The reason I ask is because the reversion also included a new section with further sourcing, and this was done in response to talk page comments regarding the publishers' response. Therefore, might it then be considered a substantially different edit? Many thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola 18:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the matter. I personally have never read any of the books or the like, but I am eyeing this page carefully because I am worried about the encyclopedia issues wrt hype/secrecy/author's wishes vs. our encyclopedic imperatives and policies. Add in a bunch of zealous fans (whose efforts I respect on the whole), and it's an interesting salad! :) I don't think that anyone's acting in bad faith here, but clearly some people are forgetting things in the heat of the moment. Girolamo Savonarola 18:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinion on short article

Hi, as a fellow trawler of shortpages, I just wanted to ask your opinion on the 1947 in Mexico article and associated category. There's only one entry in there. Is it a candidate for deletion or redirection? Thanks. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've PRODed it. We'll see what happens next. - TexasAndroid 12:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. → AA ^{(talk • contribs)} — 13:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Roland Nicholson, Jr. Roland Nicholson,Jr.

The above page that you deleted on May 29, 2007 and again on June 1, 2007 is back in a slightly different form. I placed a note on the page as the nature of the re-creation may have slipped under the radar.Marylandstater 20:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Google Maps question

I noticed you had touched a few of my National Register of Historic Places stubs I was creating, so I took at look at your user page and saw that you were pretty involved with some google maps stuff. So i have a question for you, I noticed google maps has a sort of multi destination trip planning thing, and since I'm creating this articles I wanted to plan a road trip to drive around to all of them for photographs and things. I can export the info from a database in to any format I need, but I haven't found a good way to put these in to mapping software to generate a root. Maybe you have some info? Thanks pw 20:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. My involvement in GMaps is in collecting cool views, not in the use of thier direct software beyond the main user interface. So I really cannot help you. Sorry. - TexasAndroid 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First Issues Collectors Club

Will this do as references to assert that FICC is as "notable" as the APS, RPS and a host of other clubs and societies listed on Wikipedia?

• [The Glassine Surfer], a series of articles in the The American Philatelist , found FICC worthy of mention is 2003.
• Alphabetilately] cites FICC as a source of information.
• [Images of the World] extracted a short list of first issues from the official FICC list. The site also used FICC as a source on their [trivia page].
• Stabroek News used FICC to get their facts straight in the article [British Guiana postage stamps: Part 1 - 1850 - 1875]
• Nick Blackburn's site [Snap Dragon] credits FICC as the "experts" in the field of first issues.
• Information from the FICC web site was used to support the article on Postage stamps and postal history of India.

These sources are conveniently available on the Internet. If I were to mention any other sources (TV, newspapers, ...), how could you possibly verify that they were legitimate?

I think it would be nice (perhaps even polite?) if you'd ask for more information instead of the "rhinoceros approach" of deleting anything ASAP. Maybe it would even be in the interest of Wikipedia if you could be more specific when you delete an entry, for example by adding a suggestion as to how the page would qualify for inclusion. Some of the reasons given ("lack of notability", for example) are rather vague (yes, I did read the Wikipedia page explaning what it means).

What I'm asking is basically that you (and other well meaning administrators) HELP us mere mortals, rather than compete in being the first to delete a new entry. I'm certainly no expert, but perhaps you could mark a new entry as a stub if you feel that it lacks something or other? I'm thinking that this would give the creator as well as other contributors time to polish the article. Or maybe there's another way of doing this?

Keep up the GOOD work all you guys do. Jesper Andersen, The Woodlands, Houston, Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesper A (talk • contribs)

Reverting disambigs

Please hold off on reverting the disambigs, the articles are still being created... pw 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would argue the disambigs are not broken because the incoming links are for unrelated topics, a redirect would result in links pointing to the incorrect page and people getting the wrong information. If the only incoming links were for the intended redirect target, then yes I could see changing it back to a redirect, but for all of these pages that is not true, they all have other intended targets that are not the one you are redirecting too. Since there is a lot of risk of confusion, with the prexisting links or just searches in general, the disambiguation is necessary. pw 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot will eventually create the other pages in the list, disambiguation I have to handle manually though and its hard for me to keep track of it all so its easier for me to do it now while I'm thinking about it, then to do it later. pw 15:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop, the bot can't handle it, I have to do it manually, you are making my work a lot harder. pw 15:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The pages ARE being created, thats what I'm saying, the bot can only run so fast... pw 15:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The bot doesn't have problems, thats not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is the bot defaults to creating a redirect, it then examines the "What Links Here" data, if its more than what it expects, like other unrelated states and so forth it flags it for me to review. I then review it and see if a disambiguation is necessary because multiple states contain items with the same name, so I then change it to a disambig. The disambig policy specifically states:

Ask yourself: When a reader enters this term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result? (For example, when someone looks up Joker, would they expect to find information on a comedian? On a card? On Batman's nemesis? On the hit song or album by The Steve Miller Band?) When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate or add a link to a disambiguation page.

And that is clearly the case here, pages even linking here expect other results. If you want to flag these for cleanup, use the disambig cleanup template instead. pw 15:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

"Far from over" I like that. Anyway, you need to assume good faith here. The articles ARE BEING CREATED. The disambiguation will be necessary soon, but the bot can only stub so fast, it has limits on its editing speed as do all people. If you came back in a week or two this argument will be moot, since the other articles will be present, I could even change the bot to do creation based on number of things that share its name so that these would be worthwhile sooner. pw 15:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when the discussion is up, we are both pretty invested now, a 3rd party would probably help us. Just one final note, I would fully agree with you except if you take a look at this [1] you can see that multiple different incoming links are looking for other topics, not the topic it was redirecting to. If people getting redirected wouldn't be confused, I would fully agree with you, but anyone clicking through those other pages are going be confused because its not the intent of those links. pw 15:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dj minis

Thank you for deleting the article. He (Djminis) twice removed the speedy deletion tag that I put on, and has done this with his previous articles about (what I'm assuming to be) himself, as said here: User_talk:Djminis.

Thank you for rectifing the situation,
Gbenemy 18:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

deleted page

Hi there I see you deleted "Platycopida". This page refers to a taxonomic group of animals (within the ostracoda) and I am aiming to create pages linking through various taxonomic levels. There were further links in that page to other taxonomic groups. I realise the pages aren't currently very long but I am hoping that biologists familiar with these groups add to the pages. Can we please reverse this deletion?

I forgot to sign my name: Anna33 17:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on poster's talk page. - TexasAndroid 18:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted page - more on Platycopida Taxonomic pages are a special case in Wikipedia as they also link to the important Wiki species portal, of high use even to professional biologists. In this case, more information was available at the embedded links within the (now-deleted) Platycopida, to the taxonomic families within (those pages also had reference lists). Anna33 22:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Krŏng Kaôh Kŏng

Krong means 'town' in Khmer so redirecting this article to the Koh Kong Province article is incorrect. See the dab page Koh Kong for details. Cheers, Paxse 17:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> Look, at the moment there are at least four editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cambodia, who have been racing around trying to tidy up neglected Cambodian geography articles - and the sub stubs are obviously a priority. Check 'related changes' on List of Cambodia related topics for an idea of the level of activity. Most of these articles have been neglected for years and the project has only recently got underway. We have just finished tagging and assessing some 700 articles so we can seriously get to work. If "showing up on the Short Pages report" is a cardinal sin for an article, that results in it being redirected, then leaving a message on the talk page or at the wikiproject (tag and link available on the talk page) would have seen it expanded within 24 hours. Would you redirect Washington, D.C. to Washington State? Then please don't do it here. I dislike revert warring and prefer discussion to resolve disputes. Personally, I try to stick to 1RR as a best practice. I see you have reverted again - how about putting it back so that we can expand the entry? Thanks Paxse 18:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean about revert wars - I try to stay away myself. Khmer Rouge and Ben Kiernan both went crazy on my watchlist today as a couple of edit warriors duked it out over what someone might have said in 1978 - go figure. Btw I see two more Cambodian geo stubs on the shortpages list - 360 Net Leung and 425 Phnom Malai. Don't go getting an itchy mouse finger now! Give me 24 hours to stub them out properly with some refs. It's 2 a.m. here and time for sleep. Cheers, Paxse 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Andy Hay

Request for Andy Hay article to be brought back.Londo06 22:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The total contents of the page were "Andy Hay is a Rugby League player. He used to play for Leeds Rhinos." There is no sourcing, no real assertion of notability, nothing. The page is welcome to be recreated if it can be sourced and show why he is notable (See WP:V.) But there is really nothing there worth bringing back from what was there previously. - TexasAndroid 13:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Erebus (Band)

ChaseDCox

This is page is intended to capture the success of the band and document what they have done. They have helped numerous locals by raising money to help cover medical bills and other family tragedies.

The band holds numerous honors and deserves to be credited with a wiki page. ChaseDCox 18:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I just began the site I can see where you would assume we were a highshool band, except the fact that I have not had the time to cover the entirety of the success of the group. What do I need to do to keep the page. The band members are now in college and about to graduate. ChaseDCox 18:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I found some news paper articles, but you have to login to view the articles about the fund raising and the Grammy thing. ChaseDCox 18:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to respond? Let me know what I need to do please. ChaseDCox 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The band is not a High School Band, however they began in high school. They have been together since 2002. ChaseDCox 18:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a site that references the band already on Wiki.

http://www.clarksvegas.com/wiki/index.php?title=Local_Music under the name Made in The 80's

as well as

http://www.clarksvegas.com/wiki/index.php?title=Made_in_the_80%27s ChaseDCox 18:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The band also meets some of the requirements as stated:

7. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; There are no other Prog Death Metal bands in Clarksville, TN. 9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. We have one 3 battle of the bands including the one for our City. ChaseDCox 19:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

ChaseDCox 19:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Responded on user's talk page. - TexasAndroid 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If you would kindly un-delete my page I could place reliable resources. ChaseDCox 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I will userfy it for you, which means that I can place a copy in your User space for you to work on, but I decline to restore it in the existing form in the article space. Once you have the article sourced, it would be a very good idea to have one or two regular editors double-check that it meets the WP:MUSIC requirements before it is returned to Article space. Also, have you read the WP:MUSIC requrements and figured out whether the band even meets them? If it does not, then this would be a waste of time. - TexasAndroid 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You may also notice that the band meets 2 of the requirements to have a wiki page, yet you still deleted it. ChaseDCox 19:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. So it sounds like you have checked out WP:MUSIC. Exactly which requirements does it meet? - TexasAndroid 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They meet Number 7, as they are the only Progressive/Death/Metal band in there City, as well as Number 9, winning 3 battle of the bands as well as winning the City hosted battle of the bands, winning them a spot to head line the concert in the park series. They also were selected from many groups to play for Grammys in the School. ChaseDCox 19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

How can I access the page for myself to edit it? I can not seem to find it. It looks like it has been completely wiped out. ChaseDCox 19:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Also one last question, I have newspaper articles as well as coverage from a Nashville News Station on dvd. Can I reference those? Do I reference them as if I was writing a research paper?

Offline sources are acceptable, though online ones are prefered, if only because they are easier to verify. Check out WP:V for details on verifying things. - TexasAndroid 19:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Deucalionite

Just in case you wanted to know, he reverted all of your redirects to the province list pages... I've reverted some, but I have to go... so you should probably fix the rest. Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I already hashed this out with him. As long as he was not "reverting", but was actually putting at least a little bit of useful information on each page, then I was not going to redirect them again. And, as of a day or two ago, each that I saw of his "reverts" were actually at least minor expansions. The pages now had more information than was availible at the redirect destination, so I let them be. - TexasAndroid 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. If you've already worked it out, then I'll let it be... sorry for causing trouble. I just saw a lot of reverts of an admin's edits, and assumed the worst... which perhaps I ought not to have done. Gscshoyru 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Erebus (Band) redux

It's tagged speedy (again) but I saw that you had restored it, being the only band of genre X in small town Y seems to be their main claim to notability, but that doesn't seem to satisfy WP:MUSIC. I'm leaving it tagged but won't delete it unless you give an OK (or you can do it yourself or userfy it), because backing-and-forthing among admins is seldom productive. Carlossuarez46 23:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for responding. I thought it may have been something of that sort. Carlossuarez46 05:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

StarChat

A few months ago the article was deleted due to notability. While the loss will probably go unnoticed to the Wikipedia project I find the reason a bit empty considering there are over 215,000 google references to the term and it has existed for many many years (similar to many other larger networks). I'm just curious how you determined the notability or lack of. Thanks! :) -JE 20:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Encyclopedist sleeper

Joan Reid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has not yet been blocked at the time of this writing, but its contributions are clearly in line with other Encyclopedist socks who have attacked John Reid's page. If you would, please block this account before it does further damage.

In addition, I wonder what Encyclopedist is up to now - he claims that he has gained adminship under another account while simutaneously vandalizing using other socks. Should we attempt to seek out his other accounts and have them blocked and/or desysopped? TML 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how we would go about this, if he is smart enough to not leave IP evidence that could be found via Checkuser, which I suspect is the case. Where did you see him claim to have an admin account? I know adminship was one of his goals way back, but I'm unaware of him saying that he actually got it somewhere. - TexasAndroid 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The adminship claim is from these two edits [2] [3]. TML 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

CyberExtension

Why was the CyberExtension page deleted? I would like to know why this was considered advertising yet the WebCT, Blackboard, etc. pages are not. Nothing that I saw in that page warranted such a determination. Nothing in there was advertising. It was informative content about a product that has wide usage. "Reviewing" isn't supposed to mean that you delete articles at will. Suggest what is wrong with it, even correct it. Don't just go and delete things because YOU in your own opinion find it to be advertising. This page had existed for months and no one thought it was advertising. In fact, other Wiki users contributed to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.63.110 (talk • contribs)

Fine. We will do this the hard way. AFD deletion nomination coming up. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Texan!!!

What is wrong with the article on Riza Sapunxhiu? He was a member of the collegial head of state of Yugoslavia. 100,000 sq mi and a population of over 20 million? We are not talking about members of a county’s legislature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Getoar (talk • contribs)

My problems were exactly as stated on the AFD page, and no more. At no point did I say anything about the importance or unimportance of Yugoslavia, so arguing against me having belittled Yugoslavia is a false argument when I said no such thing. I had a problem with a specific article about a specific man. The article made very vague claims to notability, had zero souring, and had wild speculation of what might have been if history had gone differently. That last is the realm of speculative fiction, not an encyclopedia. You have now done a great job of cleaning up the article and addressing the deficiencies, so I'm inclined to change my opinion on it. But do keep in mind, attacking the person you are arguing with, and especially attacking them for saying things that they never said, is far from a good way to get other people to come around to your point of vioew. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

American Inventor

I'm sure I could find dozens of blog entries talking about the prior art on the Guardian Angel, but I thought an actual US patent would be a better reference. Oh, well. Sorry about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.42.208.182 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:VERIFY. Blogs are generally not considered reliable sources. When the controversy starts hitting the more reliable sources, that's when it is likely appropriate to document it here. But for now, Wikipedia is still not the right place to use to try to build up the controversy itself. - TexasAndroid 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Zorglbot/Shortpages on the tool server

I thought you might be interested by the fact that a version of the shortpages bot now runs on the toolserver; the main advantage is that it is run every 15 minutes on a live database; in the future, I should be able to improve the page a bit more, for example by making it interactive so that people can decide to display only some categories of pages. Of course, it depends on good replication of the main database with the toolserver; this has been a problem in the past but seems to be working ok at the moment.

The page is located at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~schutz/output/shortpages.html; I have tested it in the past few days, and it seems to work (at least it gave me plenty of work to do — tagging of articles for SD, fixing stuff and listing some articles for deletion), so I'd like to ask two or three users of the current page (plus the readers of their talk page, of course :-) to try it and act as beta testers... if everything goes well, I'll advertise it more widely and, maybe later, will stop the bot altogether. If you are interested and try it, comments are welcome on my talk page. Thanks, Schutz 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Why did you do this? Please respond on my talk page. SLSB talk • contrib 14:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure

I was only pleased to help. I hope the picture gets to stay, and I hope that I was able to contribute to, and simplify what seems initially to be a byzantine area of expertise.  :) BlueSapphires 19:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Blackle

Hi, you protected Blackle a while ago, there is now a page called Blackle.com that was up for deletion, but was ruled as Keep. Can you either move the article over to Blackle, or unprotect Blackle and point it to Blackle.com MyTigers 17:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship

I just finished filling in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Schutz — took me longer than I expected, and I wrote more than I expected, too... Can I let you have a quick look, and if everything is ok, list it ? Thanks ! Schutz 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Prod. on In lieu

Hi, just to let you know I deprod'd it and listed it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A5 transwikied dictionary definition. KTC 11:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And I've just done the same for Query Processing. KTC 14:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For me, I prefer to PROD them, because it gives a chance to protest. But I have no general problem with you Speedy tagging them if you want to do so. - TexasAndroid 16:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I understand your reasoning in prodding them. However, in those case, they're blatant dictionary definition only, so I'm happy to just speedy them. Good on you for finding those articles in the first place. - KTC 17:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've PRODed over 100 transwikied pages in the last couple of days, as a guestimate. Most came from Category:Transwiki cleanup. A few that I found myself came from running Short Pages patrol. As for the category, there was a user who used to regularly PROD things shortly after the copy bot did it's job. He stopped for some reason back sometime in June, and the category has been backing up ever since. I got tired of the back-up and PRODed 75% or more of the contents of the category. A handful have since been protested, and two of those I sent to AFD. One is going strongly Delete, and the other an overwhelming Keep, with a good bit of improvement already done to the article. :) - TexasAndroid 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 16:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Flee-Rekkers

Hi. You deleted my article - my fault perhaps for saving it before I had finished it. I was going to do some research. I think they were Dutch. They were certainly lousy. Rothorpe 19:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't think I'll bother. Rothorpe 20:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

A new perk for the shortpages tool...

I think this should be quite useful (and extendable if you have any ideas): have a look at [4], it should be self-explanatory. Schutz 22:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete China Molybdenum

I am editing right now. Please don't delete it!! Ricky@36 0:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Speedway World Team Cup

Stop deleting. It has taken me six hours to write this article and you keep deleting it or removing cats. Since when is writing a legitimate article 'vandalism'. Full list saved now, just need to amend text. Try bring trigger happy elsewhere. Luckily I save the article in a text pad after you wiped the first two hours worth of work.Hammer1980 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. Didn't realise he had interfered again until later. Thanks Hammer1980 09:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Prodding transwiking articles

Isn't there are CSD criterion for transwikied articles, WP:CSD#A5? I'm deleting them by the tons (obvious hyperbole), and it will be better if you can personally delete them. Cheers! Maxim 00:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer to give the transwikied articles a chance for rehabilitation. Five days on PROD gives people a chance to protest, and a number of them have done just that. On one where, even after the protest I still felt it should be deleted, I put it up for AFD, and the AFD was resoundingly opposed by the botany community on the project, and the article was much improved during the AFD time. So it's to give the chance for this time of improvement into keepable article that I use PROD rather than speedy. Not all are improved. Most are not. But PROD gives them a chance, while if I speedied them, there would be no chance. And overall, I'm not in a hurry to see these go away. There's no rush. As for the large numbers, someone else used to regularly PROD these each day. They stopped around June, and these have been backing up, unattended, since then. I got tired of it, and started PRODing a bunch to clear out the backlog. After two days of PRODs (of which I think you just deleted the first day's), I got caught up, and have been myself PRODing each day's transwikies since. So after the next batch of PRODed transwikies, the numbers in each day's group should drop dramatically. - TexasAndroid 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Conradi question

I just want to clarify that none of my remarks were personal. I also must disclose that I feel deep disgust towards the whole "community ban" procedure. In my opinion, it makes it all too easy for a bunch of editors pissed at someone (for whatever reason, valid or not) to gang up on a person and get rid of him/her. The day when this procedure was introduced is a dark day in the history of Wikipedia indeed. The main reason why I am not fighting that evil innovation is because I simply do not have time (and trust me, this pitiful and lame excuse does not at all make me feel better as a person). Also, I could have explained here why Tobias behaves the way he does and why he snaps at any hint of what can possibly be perceived as "abuse", but those long explanations had already been posted, time and time again, in numerous places by various editors, without being able to shed any light into the blind eye of the community of the pissed and a-ban-will-fix-it-all-minded editors. There were many things for which Tobias could have (and should have, and had) been blocked for various intervals of time, but there had never been a reason good enough to ban him forever. Regards,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving Milena velba to correct capitalization

This article was created with an incorrect capitalization, presumably to get around the protection of Milena Velba, the correct spelling. Looking around, it seems an unreferenced version of the article was deleted at the start of the year, and several attempted recreations were deleted as "recreation of deleted content". After thinking about it, I think a professor at a respected university claiming the world's largest anything is sufficiently notable for an article. This is to notify one of the deleting admins; if you disagree, let's talk on the article talk page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortpages

How long a comment does it need to be? ([5]) --Dweller 15:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a moving target, and there are currently two different sources. The goal is to move pages that need no attention fron short-pages patrollers off the list entirely. The official list is currently 1,000 pages, and ends around 109 characters. There is a new shortpages bot in beta testing on the tools server that currently shows 1,500 pages, topping out around 113 characters. The string I use bumps the salting pages down to the 140s, well below the current limits. - TexasAndroid 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK... I'll aim for 140 characters in future. --Dweller 16:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Brightcove

Please can you let me know why this page has been removed and also why I can't edit it? Additionally, why can't an employee update a page - I thought wikipedia was all about 'by the people, for the people' - so long as there is nothing promotional, why does it matter who updates a page? Many thanks for your time on this, Charly —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlottecopeman (talk • contribs)

It was deleted as SPAM by five different admins before finally being protected from further recreation. My name is on it simply because I converted it from one type of protection to another. I'm not one of the five. I can list the five deleting admins out for you if you would like to discuss with any of them the actual deletion/protection descisions. As for editing about where you work, check out WP:COI for why this, while not prohibited, is generally a bad idea. - TexasAndroid 19:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

David Oh

Should David Oh be tagged as db-bio? I'm almost certain of coi, but not sure about the speedy. -WarthogDemon 20:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keith Exford

Hi, Could you take a look at this article please. It appears to be a BLP article on a non-notable person and there's a claim that the material is libellous. I had tagged it for G10 but not sure if that is appropriate so rv'd it and bring it to your attention. Thanks. → AA ^(talk) — 23:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was a copyvio anyway and has been speedied per G12. Cheers. → AA ^(talk) — 08:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Council of the Marches

I don't believe this actually qualified as a speedy G7. I made substantial edits to that page (filling out the list of Lord Presidents and sourcing), although I was not the original author. Could you please restore it? Choess 13:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for Council of Wales and the Marches. It was moved there by Drachenfyre who blanked the redirect. You are free to discuss and create the redirect if required. → AA ^(talk) — 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reversed myself and restored the redirect. When I looked at it again I saw that there were a half dozen or so incoming links, at which point the redirect makes sense to maintain the connections despite the G7 request by the article's mover. I've been bitten before by G7 requests for deletion of redirects just after moves, and I need to be more careful of checking the incoming links before I carry out such requests. - TexasAndroid 14:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cobb Hill

Could you respond to the last discussion point on the Cobb Hill article? I removed the article content. You restored it. Perhaps justified in wikipedia ethics. I never should have put the article up in the first place, but I didn't realize articles could become targets for homophobic attacks. The attack went unnoticed by anyone in the community, since none of us is really into this Wikipedia thing. What's the right thing to do if none of us wants to bother policing to check against hate speech being added to the article about our community? Maybe someone like you, who clearly enjoys watching for changes and correcting them, could check it out daily and let us know who hates us now? Actually it's a good thing to remember, once and a while, that one has neighbors who not only disagree with you, they want you to disappear. (Hope I added this the right way.)Philip W Bush 15:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortpages on Wikipedia

Any objection if I stop the bot that updates User:Zorglbot/Shortpages ? There has been a warning on the page for a couple of days, and since the toolserver version seems to work ok, there is no point using Wikipedia's ressources for nothing (1000 pages read per day). Of course, I'll redirect people to the new page, and I will keep the bot handy if the toolserver replication starts lagging so that I could reactivate it easily. Schutz 15:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

As a courtesy, I wanted to let you know that I've recreated this article over the redirect. There's already quite a lot of referenced material and besides, as a birthday gift (see User talk:Clio the Muse) I'm going to try to push it to GA, which means it should get bigger... and better. --Dweller 08:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Friends

Not sure what to speedy tag Wikipedia:Friends this as, but it's not a valid page to say the least... -WarthogDemon 17:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Friends. Hope my wording is okay. -WarthogDemon 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And looked like it was deleted per what you mentioned. =O New record for afds/mfds I put up that get quickly deleted. -WarthogDemon 18:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I can see why he did so; I see both your points actually. Honestly I'm thinking that maybe the user is having a hard time understanding English jargon because I haven't seen anything in his problematic edits that indicate he's intentionally disrupting Wikipedia. Odd situation. :/ And on another note I just noticed your post on User talk:Schultz and replied there with info that may or may not be worth knowing. -WarthogDemon 18:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Haber Kuşağı

Hello,

Haber Kuşağı was about an online newspaper. It was not a website advertisement. Why is it deleted? If it has a real reason, then we should delete all other topics about other online newspapers.

Cercersan 22:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Codelyoko193

Ok, thanks. Codelyoko193 _TalkEditor Review 16:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Awujale

The six pages Ijebu, Adebonojo, Ijebu Ode, Italé, Jayin, Ibadan all refer to Awujale. Please, un-delete it so that whatever information was there can be used as a stub. Thecurran 17:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The total contents was "Awujale is an old high royal title from Nigeria before European colonization." and a Nigeria stub. There was really nothing there worth saving, which is why it was deleted in the first place. I have absolutely no problems with an actual substantive article being created in the same place. That does not require me to undelete the sub-stub that was there previously. - TexasAndroid 17:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

University of Cincinnati - Clermont College

I have to disagree with you that Clermont College isn't notable. It has constantly been expanding over the years and just recently constructed a new building. The school has also started to provide bachelors degrees and enables many transfer paths to UC Main and the University of Kentucky. It also has mention in several news articles.--Campbecf 20:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to write up a useful article in that space for it then. The article that was there said, in total, "The University of Cincinnati- Clermont campus, or UCC, is located in Batavia, Ohio." No assertion in the slightest of notability, let alone references to actually show notability. Not even really enough to be considered a stub. But if you want to create a useful article on it, then more power to you. - TexasAndroid 20:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That was created by a friend in preperation of future additions to the article - you have to start somewhere, it was probably up for less than 8hrs before it was deleted. --Campbecf 22:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but we really do not allow placeholder articles. Not that every article needs to start as a full blown fully fleshed out article, but there are minimum requirements to avoid deletion. - TexasAndroid 00:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Do you have a list of these requirements so that I can avoid this in the future? --Campbecf 04:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOTE gives the key ones on notability, which is the main one at play here. There is also WP:CSD, which describes the conditions for Speedy Deletion. The most common one, and the one in play here, is A7, again for Notability, and maybe a bit of A3 for lack of content. But primarily A7. Placeholder articles generally violate one or more of the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy Deletion is only one of the three main methods of deletion, but it's the only one in which an article can/should be deleted without notice (Speedy). The others are WP:PROD and WP:AFD, if you want to check them out. - TexasAndroid 04:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Permanent North American Gaeltacht

So the same guy who cut off a (second) deletion review as "uphold deletion" then immediately turns around and unilaterally undeletes it? That's not even CLOSE to proper admin action: you do things in the open, not through the back door. I'm reopening the second DRV. --Calton | Talk 14:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For me, the key here was the "substantially different". I got slammed pretty hard at DRV myself a couple of months back for Speedy Deletion enforcing of an older AFD when the new article was also substancially different. Maybe the person who recreated the article should have taken it to DRV himself, instead of recreating it, but that I was also substantially in the wrong for Speedy Deleting a substantially different version that had addressed all the AFD concerns. I see the current article as being in a very similar situation. Maybe Xoloz should have performed another DRV himself, instead of moving the article back to main space, but that's a problem with his actions, not the article. The article there now is not the same one that was AFD/DRVed, and the AFD concerns, about notability and references, have been addressed. The bit about it being the same admin as the DRV close was that he would be in a goot position to judge the progress that was made on it while it was userfied. And there was a good bit of progress while userfied, thus the "substantially different" situation. If you feel you need to run another DRV, so be it. But the above is my reasoning. - TexasAndroid 14:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

India in England 2007

The stub you've nominated for deletion is a little duplicate of the main article on the Indian Tour which is here Indian cricket team in England in 2007. If you think that the tour itself isn't notable you should nominate that one too. You might want to add to your deletion reasons that it's a DUPLICATE of the real article, in that case everyone would support you. Nick mallory 13:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Responded on the AFD page in question. - TexasAndroid 13:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN

I was just having a look at BJAODN when I saw this--Pheonix15 14:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

<light sarcasm> Cute </light sarcasm> - TexasAndroid 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Kentucky Fried Chicken move

Could you please explain the reason you moved Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC on 2007-08-10? The company has reverted it naming to Kentucky Fried Chicken.

Jerem43 15:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was in response to a G6 WP:CSD request from User:Thumperward. He wanted it moved back, it seemed a reasonable move to me, so I went ahead and did the move. His original edit comment on the G6 was "tag for deletion, unwarranted page move which busted all the archives". Beyond that you will need to talk to him. I personally have no major opinion as to where the page should eventually reside. - TexasAndroid 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I appreciate it. Jerem43 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talk • contribs) 17:57, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Steckline Communications, INC

SCI owns and operates the only local sports station in Wichita, KS, a top 100 market. SCI owns and operates the highest-rated am station in a four county region of Western, KS SCI owns and operates the Mid-America Ag Network and Mid-America News Network which can be heard on 37 affliate stations in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. SCI produces the award-winning Network Hour on heritage station KFTI-AM

Like Journal and Entercom, SCI is a player in the Wichita media market.

I'm confused why this "mom and pop" company, that is HIGHLY respected across the Midwest and won numerous awards, is not allowed by you to have a page?

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midamericaagnetwork (talk • contribs) 18:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I've restored it. I may have been a little hasty in deleting it. Do note, however, that you will need to get the page to a state where it meets the criteria detailed at WP:CORP, or it is very likly to be deleted again. You really need reliable, independant, non-trivial references to show that it has notability. - TexasAndroid 19:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 20:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Handsome Awkward

You deleted Pretty Handsome Awkward a while ago and protected it from recreation. The namesake is now large enough to warrant it's own page and is currently located at Pretty Handsome Awkward (The Used song). If possible, could you unprotect the page so I can move the article to it's correct place, or redirect me to someone who can? Dark jedi requiem 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretty Handsome Awkward for why it was deleted. It was salted because it was repeatedly recreated in spite of the AFD. If you think the reasonings on the AFD are no longer valid, WP:DRV is the place to go to get the AFD overturned. - TexasAndroid 11:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Frank Webster

I'm interested - what was the content of this page that you deleted?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In totality: "Professor of Sociology, City University London and critical analyst of Information Society." - TexasAndroid 11:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

ABC Radio (Waterford)

Please could you tell me why you deleted the page ABC Radio (Waterford). Your reason was that it was not an important company but why is a radio station that broadcasted to an audience of nearly 300,000 not important!!!!

Please read WP:CORP about the notability requirements for companies, including radio stations. And WP:VERIFY about verificarion requirements. You really need reliable, independant, non-trivial references to show that it has notability. - TexasAndroid 14:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

SaphiraForums

you deleted a page entitled SaphiraForums, which was designed to give information about this site to aid any who might consider joining. It as intended to help and inform people, not to provide any profit. Please reconsider what you request toe deleted.

Red Devil Captain 13:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:WEB for notability requirements. If you cannot provide reliable, independant, non-trivial references that show why your site meats the notability criteria, then it will continue to be removed. - TexasAndroid 14:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)